Bucklers as a weapon

[King Owlbear]

I have seen homebrew versions of bucklers as a type of shield, but as a thought experiment I designed a version as a weapon instead.

Buckler: 1d4 bludgeon; Martial, Light, Special; 3 lbs 2 GP
Special: Wielding a buckler increases your armor class by 1. You cannot gain this benefit from more than 1 buckler and you do not gain this benefit if you are also wielding a shield. If you are not proficient in Martial weapons you can not cast spells while wielding a buckler.

I am interested in any feedback people want to give me.

[hymer]

It seems fine from a balance perspective. A tad fiddly, but I see no problem with it. If you want to really tank, you get a big shield, and if you want to seriously dual wield, you pick a more damaging weapon. Well... Until you get Extra Attack, at least. Then it becomes pretty much an AC upgrade for dual wielders (at least without the feat), and strictly better on balance than two weapons. It's a tiny drop of 1-2 points of damage for +1 AC, a considerable boost.

I don't think it would break anything. It might come to seem as a must-have for dual wielders at some point, but that may not be a problem, depending on your table.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I consider that balanced. Your 'special' feature is identical to the 'parry' feature my colleagues and I have been using for a while, and we'd definitely say light & parry on a martial weapon leaves the damage die at d4. One step below light & finesse.

And to the "a must-have for dual wielders" point: that does chime with my understanding of European swordsmanship. Sword & buckler was, I believe, the only dual wielding style that people actually used in practical (i.e. not sporting) situations. And I've seen live demonstrations of the technique - bucklers are definitely a type of weapon, rather than a type of shield.

[hymer]

And to the "a must-have for dual wielders" point: that does chime with my understanding of European swordsmanship. Sword & buckler was, I believe, the only dual wielding style that people actually used in practical (i.e. not sporting) situations. And I've seen live demonstrations of the technique - bucklers are definitely a type of weapon, rather than a type of shield.
And this moves us a little away from the historically more dubious dual wielding, and into something that happened, though it doesn't on film (much).
But then, those practical situations did not include guys in full plate. (Or dragons.) Bucklers were certainly used, but more on the grounds that they were easier to lug around than a big shield. If you were going into a big battle, you'd either have no shield or a big one. Bucklers were specialist weapons, intended for small-scale, 'civilian' fighting and formal duels. The sheer surface area of a big shield is very helpful in a melee with lots of enemies you can't entirely keep an eye on, and missiles flying about, often in volleys.

Edit: That's not to say bucklers are less protective than a big shield in their area of speciality. In a duel, the buckler would hinder its owner less in their offensive moves (depending on the weapon, I suppose), while giving basically as good protection against that single opponent as a large shield (again, with perhaps some specific exceptions).

[Eric Diaz]

Its good. To avoid balance issues, I'd use "+1 AC until the beginning of your next turn if you use your bonus action/reaction", or it will surpass every pother light weapon.

EDIT: I completely agree with "buckler as weapon" instead of shield, I use it myself.

EDIT 2: or make it an "exotic" weapon, requiring a feat, and allow it to be used with a rapier. Keep in mind that RAW you couldn't use rapier+buckler without dual wielder.

[Requilac]

This seems fine to me. I can't imagine why anyone except for a dual wielder would want to use it, but that's not really an issue. It is infinitely superior to all other light weapons and really increases the power of dual wielding of course, but dual wielding needed a boost. By using a buckler and a short-sword instead of two short-swords you are forsaking 1 point of damage for a +1 to AC, so swasbuckling is clearly a superior option. I can't imagine it ever being a problem though, especially considering dual wielding already eats up your bonus action. I don't really have anything new to add.

[JackPhoenix]

This seems fine to me. I can't imagine why anyone except for a dual wielder would want to use it, but that's not really an issue. It is infinitely superior to all other light weapons and really increases the power of dual wielding of course, but dual wielding needed a boost. By using a buckler and a short-sword instead of two short-swords you are forsaking 1 point of damage for a +1 to AC, so swasbuckling is clearly a superior option. I can't imagine it ever being a problem though, especially considering dual wielding already eats up your bonus action. I don't really have anything new to add.

Take Dual Wielder feat. You now have the same AC as proper shield, can use rapier in the main hand, and still make TWF attacks.

TWF is now superior to using sword & proper board.

[Requilac]

Take Dual Wielder feat. You now have the same AC as proper shield, can use rapier in the main hand, and still make TWF attacks.

TWF is now superior to using sword & proper board.

This assumes that the DM is allowing the variant rule of feats. It is not an inherent part of 5e to have feats, so I didn't go into detail about that. And even then it is easily covered up by the DM just banning the Dual Wielder Feat. That problem is easily fixed though. You have a rather good eye to be able to pick that detail out though, I would have never immediately recognized that.

[Eric Diaz]

Take Dual Wielder feat. You now have the same AC as proper shield, can use rapier in the main hand, and still make TWF attacks.

TWF is now superior to using sword & proper board.

Take the Shield Master feat instead of the dual wielder feat. Now sword & proper board is (arguably) better than TWF.

Although I do agree the buckler as written in the OP is a bit OP.

[JackPhoenix]

This assumes that the DM is allowing the variant rule of feats. It is not an inherent part of 5e to have feats, so I didn't go into detail about that. And even then it is easily covered up by the DM just banning the Dual Wielder Feat. That problem is easily fixed though. You have a rather good eye to be able to pick that detail out though, I would have never immediately recognized that.

It is likely that GM that bans feats (wholesale or selectively) won't allow homebrewed items either. And "to make homebrewed item not overpowered, just ban stuff that's in core books" doesn't sound like a good fix


Take the Shield Master feat instead of the dual wielder feat. Now sword & proper board is (arguably) better than TWF.

Although I do agree the buckler as written in the OP is a bit OP.

Haven't you heard? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?558521-JC-Update-on-bonus-actions) Shield Master has been nerfed and it's now completely useless.

Funny thing is, I can see people arguing that despite listing buckler as a weapon, it should also count as a shield, and thus work with Shield Master too.

In older times, bucklers didn't protected against ranged attacks, but that sounds too fiddly for 5e. In more recent, but still old times, buckler gave its AC bonus only if the arm you wore it on (yes, bucklers didn't work like RL bucklers in 3.x) wasn't used for an attack (TWF or 2-handed).

I think that's a better solution: if you use the buckler to make an attack, you won't get the AC bonus until the start of your next turn. Now you have to choose between offense and defense, and it interacts with Dual Wielder better, IMO: you get the full benefit of the shield, or you get to use TWF, but not both at the same time, and you don't have to spend actions and object interactions to switch between the two modes. Hell, I'd even allow it work with first two bullet points of Shield Master like that, but again, you'll need to choose how are you using it in a given round.

And I would totally give rogues and bards proficiency with it.

[King Owlbear]

Thanks for the feedback, it's given me a few thoughts.
First, having a weapon that eclipses all other choices is bad design. So as written it is overpowered. So I have a few options on tweaking it.
One thing is that I can reduce the damage from 1d4 to 1. Feels kinda lame but it would change the balance to closer to where it should be.
An option that I like better is that rather than gaining a bonus to ac, being able to use your reaction to force disadvantage on attack rolls from a single creature. This would make it great in a one on one situation but mediocre versus multiple foes.

[Requilac]

It is likely that GM that bans feats (wholesale or selectively) won't allow homebrewed items either. And "to make homebrewed item not overpowered, just ban stuff that's in core books" doesn't sound like a good fix.

I don't know how much that first sentence is true, but YMMV. And I don't quite see whats wrong with that fix. The DM wouldn't have to ban dual wielder entirely, they could just say it doesn't overlap with the effects of the buckler. Of course there are other solutions, but the one I presented seems simple enough and is unlikely to cause problems. I mean its sort of weird, but it doesn't really get in the way of anything nor make the game more awkward so I don't see the issue with it.


Thanks for the feedback, it's given me a few thoughts.
First, having a weapon that eclipses all other choices is bad design. So as written it is overpowered. So I have a few options on tweaking it.
One thing is that I can reduce the damage from 1d4 to 1. Feels kinda lame but it would change the balance to closer to where it should be.

Ehh, normally I would say that your second sentence is true, but in this case I don't think it is. Two Weapon Fighting kind of sucks as is, so making a weapon combination which eclipses all the others seems fair. Odds are it will still be one of the worst fighting styles out there even with the buckler.

[Eric Diaz]

I think that's a better solution: if you use the buckler to make an attack, you won't get the AC bonus until the start of your next turn. Now you have to choose between offense and defense, and it interacts with Dual Wielder better, IMO: you get the full benefit of the shield, or you get to use TWF, but not both at the same time, and you don't have to spend actions and object interactions to switch between the two modes. Hell, I'd even allow it work with first two bullet points of Shield Master like that, but again, you'll need to choose how are you using it in a given round.

And I would totally give rogues and bards proficiency with it.

I agree, this is the best solution. Either offense or defense.

[Mortheim]

I have seen homebrew versions of bucklers as a type of shield, but as a thought experiment I designed a version as a weapon instead.

Buckler: 1d4 bludgeon; Martial, Light, Special; 3 lbs 2 GP
Special: Wielding a buckler increases your armor class by 1. You cannot gain this benefit from more than 1 buckler and you do not gain this benefit if you are also wielding a shield. If you are not proficient in Martial weapons you can not cast spells while wielding a buckler.

I am interested in any feedback people want to give me.


Is it considered shield or weapon? Dueling with this might be too good, imho, but all in all it is balanced.

[Eric Diaz]

Is it considered shield or weapon? Dueling with this might be too good, imho, but all in all it is balanced.

Weapon. Works with TWF, allows you to attack as a bonus action, but doesn't work with Shield Master, etc.

[King Owlbear]

Perhaps it could be written something like, "When wielding this weapon you may forgo one attack, with this weapon, to increase your AC by 1untill the start of your next turn. You can not use this feature more than once per round, or if you are already gaining the benefit of a shield."
It's basically the same as what you wrote but it might be an interesting option for grapplers with multiple attacks.
With this in mind, does that make the shield master feat too good?

Edit: I meant to be quoting jack Phoenix's most recent post but I am bad at the internet.