Shield Variety

[ciarannihill]

It reoccurred to me recently while playing Dark Souls that DnD feels like it should have more shield variety than it does. I've thought this in the past, but kind of dismissed it as unneeded complexity that doesn't seem to grant too much benefit, but I've reconsidered this argument a bit.

So there are examples in historical combat of small shields being mounted on the forearm to block or parry attacks without losing the use of that hand for numerous uses (manipulating objects without losing the shield, wielding a weapon two handed or (rarely) having an offhand weapon. Obviously these don't grant the same protections as a full size shield, but having "small shield" as a category that, say, allows you to use your reaction to gain +1 AC until you next turn seems reasonable enough to me.

On the other end of the spectrum are large and tower shields, which are heavy and cumbersome, but grant a great deal of protection behind them. You could implement them in a similar way to heavy armor -- have a Strength requirement for their use and have them simply grant +3 AC as opposed to +2, but at the cost of disadvantage on Stealth checks and Dexterity saving throws. Alternatively you could have them grant +2 AC like normal shields, but allow the use of a bonus action to "turtle" behind them, granting an additional +1 AC against attacks from the front until your next turn.


Do you think shield size should play a role at all in DnD, or do you think that the extra variety comes at the cost of too much complexity? Or do you have another opinion? Would love to hear some feedback on this "shower thought".



Side thought 1: If you increase shield variety, perhaps allow for shield counter-play -- Add weapons like Shotels, that were specifically designed to disarm or hit around shields into the game. All they would need is to be reskinned Scimitars that grant +1 to attack if the target is using a shield, or something along those lines. Just a thought I had while writing up the post.

Side thought 2: There is also things like Tekkou, which I know vary in form drastically, but certain versions are essentially armored gauntlets used to be able to fight weapons wielding fighters hand to hand while being able to protect oneself as well. Curious how something like that might fit into this type of structure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Other editions had this (variety at least). It was removed, I believe (but others can correct me on this), due to the overwhelming fiddliness of it (and the weird balance effects).

For example, in 3.5 tower shields were never used because the penalties were crippling. Bucklers, especially mithral bucklers, were omnipresent because they gave AC with no drawbacks.

I'm fine with abstracting that all away. 5e makes no attempts to be a deep combat simulator--the rules are there for game purposes with a veneer of plausibility.

[ciarannihill]

Other editions had this (variety at least). It was removed, I believe (but others can correct me on this), due to the overwhelming fiddliness of it (and the weird balance effects).

For example, in 3.5 tower shields were never used because the penalties were crippling. Bucklers, especially mithral bucklers, were omnipresent because they gave AC with no drawbacks.

I'm fine with abstracting that all away. 5e makes no attempts to be a deep combat simulator--the rules are there for game purposes with a veneer of plausibility.

That makes sense, especially in terms of the tower shields. WotC doesn't view the benefits as worth the complexity it adds to the system, I've considered that plenty as well, but I go back and forth a little on it -- mostly because of smaller shields like Bucklers.

I totally understand why including them might be either overpowered or not worth using depending on implementation, though I think making them a small form of active defense as opposed to regular shields being passive defense is probably the line you want to walk.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That makes sense, especially in terms of the tower shields. WotC doesn't view the benefits as worth the complexity it adds to the system, I've considered that plenty as well, but I go back and forth a little on it -- mostly because of smaller shields like Bucklers.

I totally understand why including them might be either overpowered or not worth using depending on implementation, though I think making them a small form of active defense as opposed to regular shields being passive defense is probably the line you want to walk.

I could see some type of ability/feat/optional rule that provides an active defense with shields in general, letting the type of shield be up to the players. Possibly a reaction to impose disadvantage on an attack (or provide advantage on a dex save).

I'd imagine that this is what Shield Master was supposed to be (mainly control/knock prone/defend) rather than its current "get advantage on everything" use.

[Eric Diaz]

+1 light shields and +3 heavy shields do not break anything in the game - specially if you require a feat to use them.

Without feats:

A buckler that you treat as a 1d4 weapon that gives you +1 AC with a bonus action is reasonable enough if you don't give it other properties.

A 20-pound +3 tower shield is also reasonable if you're tracking encumbrance, but if you aren't, giving disad to Dex saves CLEARLY balances thins.

In both cases, most people would prefer the usual shield anyway - those shield would be underpowered if anything.

[ciarannihill]

You could enable a feat that feeds off the dodge action, making it potentially more usable, too. Something like:


Defense Focus:
When you take the Dodge action while wearing a shield you gain an additional +2 AC until the start of your next turn. If an enemy misses you with a melee attack while you have this benefit you may use your reaction to perform a shield bash, dealing 1d4 + Str Mod damage.

You could enable a "Buckler" as a 0 AC shield you can equip, but despite no passive benefit it grants access to this feat without taking up your off-hand. Just a spitball.

[Willie the Duck]

I would be fine with bucklers which provided a +1, but only took an object-interaction action instead of a action to ready-for-use/drop. That would be a go-to for archer/melee switch-hitting.

[Naanomi]

I’ve used tower shields as cover in this edition the few times the distinction was necessary

Bucklers I leave as shields... in genre fiction people using bucklers are just as ‘defensive’ as normal shield users, except for some bits about weight the +2 AC fits just fine. You can always use it as an improvised weapon if necessary

[Eric Diaz]

Bucklers I leave as shields... in genre fiction people using bucklers are just as ‘defensive’ as normal shield users, except for some bits about weight the +2 AC fits just fine. You can always use it as an improvised weapon if necessary

Well, there are a few reason why a buckler could be used as a weapon:

- To encourage the use for Dual Wielder builds (seem like a good fit).
- To disallow shield master.
- To allow letting go of a buckler without spending an action.

[DMThac0]

Much like PheonixPhyre said, the shield was turned into a general term due to the sheer immensity of variations that could, and have, existed without good structure. Shying away from the gritty survivalist + combat simulator that the original D&D was, 4e and 5e have taken a turn into a heroic comedy narrative. With that change the combat details are stripped down to, as close as one can attempt, the core necessities. It's an attempt to make it more accessible to new and varied players.

Adding new shields may work well, however it may be a little tricky if you want to color inside the lines of bounded accuracy and balanced game play. The terms small, medium, and large for shield descriptions works. This allows the player/DM to designate shields of varying types as needed from the buckler to the targe, or the kite and suctum. It does, however, create a limitation because each of those four shields had a particular purpose in combat which may be difficult to reflect in D&D stat wise.

Here's a spitball idea for ya:

Small = +2 AC. You can use any weapon designated finesse and/or light in the same hand as the small shield. Dual Wielding feat is no longer accessible while the shield is worn.

Medium = +2 AC.

Large = +2 AC. When using the Dodge action the shield acts as three quarters cover, and you are unable to take reactions until the beginning of your next turn. A creature cannot move through your square without an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check versus your Athletics check.

[Willie the Duck]

- To encourage the use for Dual Wielder builds (seem like a good fit).
- To disallow shield master.
- To allow letting go of a buckler without spending an action.

How would a buckler work with Dual Wielder? Fight sword and buckler and then drop the buckler when you draw weapon #2, or buckler as dual wielder second weapon (perhaps then not counting as improvised?)? Or do you mean 3e-instead-of-historical buckler where it is strapped to the forearm and leaves offhand free to hold a weapon?

[ciarannihill]

I mean the primary reason I want a distinction for Bucklers is as a Shield that doesn't require you to occupy your off hand with it - a shield mounted to your forearm or gauntlet. Obviously this would be overpowering if it just gave a free +1 AC for that, so the idea of it being active or requiring a feat comes to mind. Some kind of limiting factor would be needed. Based on that the idea of needing to use a Bonus action for it to grant the AC is good, or requiring a feat of some kind to signify you being used to using a shield mounted as opposed to held in hand.


EDIT: Seems like every time I'm piecing together a post new ones pop up!

I like a lot of these different suggestions, the idea of a Tower Shield being able to become active cover is really, really cool. I like some of the methods of introducing smaller shields, although different than my original purposes, seem like rather novel ideas with interesting implications in their own right.

[Eric Diaz]

How would a buckler work with Dual Wielder? Fight sword and buckler and then drop the buckler when you draw weapon #2, or buckler as dual wielder second weapon (perhaps then not counting as improvised?)? Or do you mean 3e-instead-of-historical buckler where it is strapped to the forearm and leaves offhand free to hold a weapon?

Buckler as dual wielder second weapon. +1 to AC from the feat, +1 from the buckler, buckler-punch for 1d4 damage.

[Willie the Duck]

Buckler as dual wielder second weapon. +1 to AC from the feat, +1 from the buckler, buckler-punch for 1d4 damage.

Got it! Trying to figure out if we were talking historical no-straps-involved buckler or the AD&D strapped to arm for crossbowmen or 3e hand-free buckler ciarannihill is talking about.

[Naanomi]

Is there any examples outside of DnD (and DnD inspired games) of using a small one-handed shield strapped to the forearm while also using a weapon in the same hand? Historical or fictional? It seems to me to be basically a 3.X conceptual invention

A quick search of historical shields shows me, at best, three examples at all of shields not held in the hand (though many were also strapped to the arm as well)
-some sort of dueling shield for formal duels
-shields strapped to the upper arm that were more like ‘armor add-ons’ than an actual shield in usage
-some Roman shield designed to allow one to hold javelins to throw in the shield hand (but not fight with them with the off-hand)

(Edit: as an aside, a buckler by definition is held in the fist... whatever we are talking about, if it exists, it is only a buckler in the 3.X sense)

[JackPhoenix]

I mean the primary reason I want a distinction for Bucklers is as a Shield that doesn't require you to occupy your off hand with it - a shield mounted to your forearm or gauntlet. Obviously this would be overpowering if it just gave a free +1 AC for that, so the idea of it being active or requiring a feat comes to mind. Some kind of limiting factor would be needed. Based on that the idea of needing to use a Bonus action for it to grant the AC is good, or requiring a feat of some kind to signify you being used to using a shield mounted as opposed to held in hand.


EDIT: Seems like every time I'm piecing together a post new ones pop up!

I like a lot of these different suggestions, the idea of a Tower Shield being able to become active cover is really, really cool. I like some of the methods of introducing smaller shields, although different than my original purposes, seem like rather novel ideas with interesting implications in their own right.

That's not how bucklers work, though. Buckler is held in your hand. If anything, buckler is worse than a strapped shield in this regard.

[Eric Diaz]

Got it! Trying to figure out if we were talking historical no-straps-involved buckler or the AD&D strapped to arm for crossbowmen or 3e hand-free buckler ciarannihill is talking about.


Is there any examples outside of DnD (and DnD inspired games) of using a small one-handed shield strapped to the forearm while also using a weapon in the same hand? Historical or fictional? It seems to me to be basically a 3.X conceptual invention

A quick search of historical shields shows me, at best, three examples at all of shields not held in the hand (though many were also strapped to the arm as well)
-some sort of dueling shield for formal duels
-shields strapped to the upper arm that were more like ‘armor add-ons’ than an actual shield in usage
-some Roman shield designed to allow one to hold javelins to throw in the shield hand (but not fight with them with the off-hand)

Yeah, I have nothing against the 3e idea, but is not that particularly interests me either (shield + wepaon in the same hand seems strange IMO).

I wouldn't min a buckler that allowed you to hold objects (not fight with weapons) but... the common shield (strapped to the arm) could allow it too.

[ciarannihill]

Here's a spitball idea for ya:

Small = +2 AC. You can use any weapon designated finesse and/or light in the same hand as the small shield. Dual Wielding feat is no longer accessible while the shield is worn.

Medium = +2 AC.

Large = +2 AC. When using the Dodge action the shield acts as three quarters cover, and you are unable to take reactions until the beginning of your next turn. A creature cannot move through your square without an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check versus your Athletics check.

Medium and Large are 100% what I was going for, small is almost there, but seems like it might be overly strong? You trade off your dual Rapiers for dual Shortswords (about 1 damage for each weapon) for +1 AC and a feat (since you no longer bother with taking the Dual Wielding feat). Seems pretty strong. Good starting point, though.


EDIT: Large Shield needs some kind of requirement or drawback for use, otherwise it's just an OP regular shield, re-reading it.

[Willie the Duck]

Is there any examples outside of DnD (and DnD inspired games) of using a small one-handed shield strapped to the forearm while also using a weapon in the same hand? Historical or fictional? It seems to me to be basically a 3.X conceptual invention

A quick search of historical shields shows me, at best, three examples at all of shields not held in the hand (though many were also strapped to the arm as well)
-some sort of dueling shield for formal duels
-shields strapped to the upper arm that were more like ‘armor add-ons’ than an actual shield in usage
-some Roman shield designed to allow one to hold javelins to throw in the shield hand (but not fight with them with the off-hand)

(Edit: as an aside, a buckler by definition is held in the fist... whatever we are talking about, if it exists, it is only a buckler in the 3.X sense)


That's not how bucklers work, though. Buckler is held in your hand. If anything, buckler is worse than a strapped shield in this regard.

You are both right. A buckler is the exact opposite of what 3e thought a buckler was.

... but it is almost as old a gaming falsehood as studded leather or calling a one handed sword a longsword or any of the other 'D&D'-isms.

Bucklers first became ahistorical with 1985's Unearthed Arcana. Here's it's description of a buckler: "Shield, Buckler is a form of small shield that protects the user against but one opponent (of the user’s choice) during any melee round in which the shield is employed. It is small and easily carried, and may be strapped to the arm, making it able to be used by crossbowmen and slingers. A small demi-human such as a halfling or a gnome would be fully protected by the buckler, and it is treated as a small shield in those cases."

I'm not sure I have a point to go along with this, only to say that it's only one of many misunderstandings that have been in D&D a long time.

[ciarannihill]

That's not how bucklers work, though. Buckler is held in your hand. If anything, buckler is worse than a strapped shield in this regard.

Sorry, I'm using Buckler as a shorthand for small shield, but I understand I'm probably muddying my point with that. Thanks for pointing that out.


EDIT: I'm gonna stop using the word "Buckler" since that seems to be a cause for confusion, sorry for that.

[Hawkstar]

What's always bothered me about D&D shields is the assumption that they're strapped to the arm instead of held in the hand.

[strangebloke]

Is there any examples outside of DnD (and DnD inspired games) of using a small one-handed shield strapped to the forearm while also using a weapon in the same hand? Historical or fictional? It seems to me to be basically a 3.X conceptual invention

A quick search of historical shields shows me, at best, three examples at all of shields not held in the hand (though many were also strapped to the arm as well)
-some sort of dueling shield for formal duels
-shields strapped to the upper arm that were more like ‘armor add-ons’ than an actual shield in usage
-some Roman shield designed to allow one to hold javelins to throw in the shield hand (but not fight with them with the off-hand)

(Edit: as an aside, a buckler by definition is held in the fist... whatever we are talking about, if it exists, it is only a buckler in the 3.X sense)
A small shield attached to the forearm could be called a targe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targe).

I've seen targes in museums that were meant to be used with a weapon in the same hand. Specifically pistols, but as usual it's easy enough to add a hand crossbow in. Still, I think that it's enough of an edge case that it doesn't need to be represented.

[rbstr]

Small = +2 AC. You can use any weapon designated finesse and/or light in the same hand as the small shield. Dual Wielding feat is no longer accessible while the shield is worn.
Large = +2 AC. When using the Dodge action the shield acts as three quarters cover, and you are unable to take reactions until the beginning of your next turn. A creature cannot move through your square without an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check versus your Athletics check.

With these options there is no reason to ever use a regular shield. Both of these are regular shield + stuff.
"Piece of equipment + more stuff" is always a bad place to start when trying to add something to the game.

[Willie the Duck]

"Piece of equipment + more stuff" is always a bad place to start when trying to add something to the game.

The piecemeal armor(studded arms, ringmail legs, brigandine torso, coif helmet)-wearing, belaying-pin and stone dagger proficient, with hollow healed boots, secret compartment in his scabbard, tar-paper and dog-pepper carrying fighter-thief I made for 2e when the Complete Fighter's and Thief's books came out would probably disagree (but exemplify the point perfectly). :smallbiggrin:

[Naanomi]

A small shield attached to the forearm could be called a targe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targe).

I've seen targes in museums that were meant to be used with a weapon in the same hand. Specifically pistols, but as usual it's easy enough to add a hand crossbow in. Still, I think that it's enough of an edge case that it doesn't need to be represented.
Just to note, from the article you cited...

“More specifically, a targe was a concave shield fitted with enarmes on the inside, one adjustable by a buckle, to be attached to the forearm, and the other fixed as a grip for the left hand”

[Sigreid]

For a tower shield I would have it provide cover in a direction rather than an AC bonus. In it's best examples it's less a shield and more a portable wall.

[bobofwestgate]

+1 light shields and +3 heavy shields do not break anything in the game - specially if you require a feat to use them.

Without feats:

A buckler that you treat as a 1d4 weapon that gives you +1 AC with a bonus action is reasonable enough if you don't give it other properties.

A 20-pound +3 tower shield is also reasonable if you're tracking encumbrance, but if you aren't, giving disad to Dex saves CLEARLY balances thins.

In both cases, most people would prefer the usual shield anyway - those shield would be underpowered if anything.

What's the point of making it a weapon? Having it give a +1 AC as a bonus action while also making it a weapon means it's competing with itself for bonus actions.

[PhantomSoul]

What's the point of making it a weapon? Having it give a +1 AC as a bonus action while also making it a weapon means it's competing with itself for bonus actions.

I was guessing that was the intent; effectively, the partial balancing measure is that when you use the shield as a weapon you don't get the extra bonus to AC and vice versa, meaning you get versatility but have to make that extra decision of which benefit you want. (And might intuitively have been for the feel that if you attack with the shield it isn't as effective for defense.)

[Unoriginal]

The piecemeal armor(studded arms, ringmail legs, brigandine torso, coif helmet)-wearing, belaying-pin and stone dagger proficient, with hollow healed boots, secret compartment in his scabbard, tar-paper and dog-pepper carrying fighter-thief I made for 2e when the Complete Fighter's and Thief's books came out would probably disagree (but exemplify the point perfectly). :smallbiggrin:

Ironically, 5e has rules for most of those gears.

[Desteplo]

If you look at it another way: past edition has tower shields (you needed a feat or be a fighter to use them)

The shield master feat gives the same bonuses that the tower shields did in 3.5

So shields are what they are and feats flavor them as they should


Side note: maybe make a sub list of magical shields to add to the campaign.

Zelda’s mirror shield absorbing fire and ice
-the dark souls style resistance (or absorbing) of another kind of element with +1s for whatever else

[strangebloke]

Just to note, from the article you cited...

“More specifically, a targe was a concave shield fitted with enarmes on the inside, one adjustable by a buckle, to be attached to the forearm, and the other fixed as a grip for the left hand”

Yes, but you could release the grip and still hold a weapon. You could do this with many bucklers as well, but calling it a 'targe' might be useful for purposes of differentiating equipment sets.

As I said, I've seen examples of targes that were specifically intended for such use.

But it was a very niche thing that I don't think needs to be represented in DND.

[strangebloke]

If I wanted to differentiate between various shields, I think there are two good routes to go with it.

+1 weapons shield is included with shield proficiency, and +3 tower shield is 'exotic'. A fighter gets them default, everyone else has to take weapon master or negotiate training the weapon proficiency with their GM.

+1 weapon shield and +3 tower shield are included with shield proficiency, but the +3 tower shield imposes a -5 to initiative or something similar.

[Eric Diaz]

What's the point of making it a weapon? Having it give a +1 AC as a bonus action while also making it a weapon means it's competing with itself for bonus actions.

Well this:


Well, there are a few reason why a buckler could be used as a weapon:

- To encourage the use for Dual Wielder builds (seem like a good fit).
- To disallow shield master.
- To allow letting go of a buckler without spending an action.

And also this:


I was guessing that was the intent; effectively, the partial balancing measure is that when you use the shield as a weapon you don't get the extra bonus to AC and vice versa, meaning you get versatility but have to make that extra decision of which benefit you want. (And might intuitively have been for the feel that if you attack with the shield it isn't as effective for defense.)