Consequences of making shields Object Interaction?

[Mr Adventurer]

So, it's an action to don or doff a shield.

In practice, I and other players of martial characters have found this quite restrictive.

If in my games we had a ruling that Shields take an Interact with Object instead of a full Action, what would be the other consequences?

The only one that springs to mind is that Thieves would be good at it.

Would another ruling be a better idea?

[MaxWilson]

Well, monsters would become fairer. A lot of monsters like goblins have their shield AC bonus listed even when they've got missile weapons, and my sense is that most DMs don't make the monsters take a round to don a shield before entering melee. Letting players do the same thing would put PCs on the same page as monsters and increase fairness.

It would make ranged PCs like Crossbow Experts stronger in melee though relative to actual melee specialists, because they can pull out a shield after shooting their hand crossbow, and that may be a bad thing in that melee already struggles to stay relevant.

That's all the implications I can think of right now.

[Zalabim]

You could find players try to juggle a shield. Use a two-handed weapon then equip a shield at the end of their turn. Next turn, doff the shield and use their weapon again. Going back and forth between the two AC values round to round could be annoying, or they just forget and always use the higher value.

[Mr Adventurer]

Well, monsters would become fairer. A lot of monsters like goblins have their shield AC bonus listed even when they've got missile weapons, and my sense is that most DMs don't make the monsters take a round to don a shield before entering melee. Letting players do the same thing would put PCs on the same page as monsters and increase fairness.

It would make ranged PCs like Crossbow Experts stronger in melee though relative to actual melee specialists, because they can pull out a shield after shooting their hand crossbow, and that may be a bad thing in that melee already struggles to stay relevant.

That's all the implications I can think of right now.

Ha ha, that's a good point about monsters! I've found that odd - but then monsters don't use the same build rules as PCs so it hasn't bothered me too much.

I guess Crossbow Expert users with hand crossbows could shoot, free reload, object interaction a shield out; and at the start of their next turn, object interaction their shield away to make their attacks; but on that second turn they wouldn't be able to get the shield out again. So it's mixed.


You could find players try to juggle a shield. Use a two-handed weapon then equip a shield at the end of their turn. Next turn, doff the shield and use their weapon again. Going back and forth between the two AC values round to round could be annoying, or they just forget and always use the higher value.

In that case though they wouldn't threaten with their two handed weapons for OA or other off-turn attacks, and as above could only swap in the shield every other turn...

[Mr Adventurer]

How about handling it by making additions to the Shield Master feat? Add the following:

You can ready or stow a weapon or other one-handed object with the same action you use to don or doff a shield. If you ready a shield with your action on your turn, you can make a single melee attack as a bonus action.

[ImproperJustice]

A simple method, and what seems to work in our games is that “drawing your weapon” as your object interaction can include both hands.

So two weapon fighters draw both at the same time, and weapon / shield is done the same way.

[Mr Adventurer]

A simple method, and what seems to work in our games is that “drawing your weapon” as your object interaction can include both hands.

So two weapon fighters draw both at the same time, and weapon / shield is done the same way.

Interesting - that's actually going further than what I originally propose, since you've both made it an object interaction and then allowed it to be folded into weapon readying.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You could find players try to juggle a shield. Use a two-handed weapon then equip a shield at the end of their turn. Next turn, doff the shield and use their weapon again. Going back and forth between the two AC values round to round could be annoying, or they just forget and always use the higher value.

I don't see how this is any more annoying than using defensive duelist, uncanny dodge, or the other features that change AC mid combat like shield.

I'm pretty sure you would need two hands to fasten a shield properly, you wouldn't be able to hold the heavy weapon and fasten the shield properly. A lighter weapon, non-heavy- I could see it being easy to grab the strap.

If a player wants to juggle AC, it's not going to hurt the balance as plenty of characters can get stupid high AC without much effort or get some delicious miss chance (mirror image is technically a miss chance).

[GorogIrongut]

If your players are going to use an Object Interaction to use their shield (which wouldn't reliably enable them to strap it on), then as a DM I would be tempted to give them a chance of losing their shield. Maybe they would drop their shield if someone critted against them. Though that wouldn't be often. Maybe if the attacker beat their AC by 5.

To just give it willy nilly would break verisimilitude for me. It would be annoying and I probably wouldn't play in that game. Because verisimilitude is important to me.

[da newt]

With this change an archer could make a long bow attack(s) then don a shield. Next round - drop shield, bow attack, don shield. Rinse repeat.

Would it break anything - nah. It would make the transition from ranged attack to melee much easier.

From a realism standpoint, it bugs me, but I've played with quite a few DMs who handwave all the weapon interactions so that PC and enemies can swap weapons multiple times mid round with no action cost, but as long as everyone plays by the same rules it's fair enough.

As an aside, I've always thought archers should carry a large shield designed to stand on it's own like an easel so they can provide their own cover.

[LudicSavant]

So, the reason that donning/doffing is an action is almost certainly that the devs wanted to prevent the dropping/swapping described here.

However, their solution doesn’t quite sit right with me for various flavor reasons.

Perhaps an alternative method would be to say something like “you may not gain a shield’s benefit to AC if you used the hand for something other than drawing or maneuvering the shield during a round.”

I’d probably also toss in the ability to draw with both hands (similar to the Dual Wielder benefit) for free.

You would still be able to swap to or from a shield more quickly, but none of the firing a bow and benefitting from a shield on the very same turn. You would, however, be able to drop the bow at start of turn and take out your sword and board and attack with them. Or vice versa.

This would also let us introduce the choice of strapped vs gripped shields. Perhaps the former would be more difficult to disarm or the like.

Just a thought. What do you all think?

[Mr Adventurer]

With this change an archer could make a long bow attack(s) then don a shield. Next round - drop shield, bow attack, don shield. Rinse repeat.


Just to note: they couldn't, because you only get one object interaction for free each round. As noted above, it would work on a two-round cycle and they wouldn't have benefit the whole time.


So, the reason that donning/doffing is an action is almost certainly that the devs wanted to prevent the dropping/swapping described here.

However, their solution doesn’t quite sit right with me for various flavor reasons.

Perhaps an alternative method would be to say something like “you may not gain a shield’s benefit to AC if you used the hand for something other than drawing or maneuvering the shield during a round.”

I’d probably also toss in the ability to draw with both hands (similar to the Dual Wielder benefit) for free.

You would still be able to swap to or from a shield more quickly, but none of the firing a bow and benefitting from a shield on the very same turn. You would, however, be able to drop the bow at start of turn and take out your sword and board and attack with them. Or vice versa.

This would also let us introduce the choice of strapped vs gripped shields. Perhaps the former would be more difficult to disarm or the like.

Just a thought. What do you all think?

That might actually be an easier way to do it! I'll add this to my shortlist of options. On the pro side, it cuts down on action-counting. But you still have to remember whether you used your shield hand for something else in a round.

Edit: would you also prevent the use of Shield Master feat on a round in which you used the hand for something other than the shield?

[Reynaert]

I'm pretty sure you would need two hands to fasten a shield properly, you wouldn't be able to hold the heavy weapon and fasten the shield properly. A lighter weapon, non-heavy- I could see it being easy to grab the strap.

There were some uncommon shields that you strapped to your arm, but those left the shield hand free to hold stuff. Such as a bow.
More popular were the shields where you just stick your hand through some loops and grabbed some other loops. No fastening required.
And also popular were the shields with a center grip, which you just held, no straps required. Easy to pick up and drop.

D&D, for some reason (game balance I guess, or otherwise popular culture), apparently decided it should take the worst aspects of each of these and combine them.

[Xetheral]

Just to note: they couldn't, because you only get one object interaction for free each round. As noted above, it would work on a two-round cycle and they wouldn't have benefit the whole time.

I believe the rule is that you can only interact with one object for free each round, but there is no limitation on how or how often you interact with that object. So I think one could draw and sheath a particular weapon without requiring one to take the Use an Object action. If you let donning and doffing a shield count as an object interaction, it could indeed be doffed and donned on the same turn. I've quoted the rule below.


...

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to Attack.

If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some Magic Items and other Special Objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.

...

[Zalabim]

I believe the rule is that you can only interact with one object for free each round, but there is no limitation on how or how often you interact with that object. So I think one could draw and sheath a particular weapon without requiring one to take the Use an Object action. If you let donning and doffing a shield count as an object interaction, it could indeed be doffed and donned on the same turn. I've quoted the rule below.
"I draw my katanalongsword. I attack. I sheathe my katanalongsword. I draw my katanalongsword. I attack. I sheathe my katanalongsword..." Repeat for all your attacks. Also known as the Infinite Iaido loophole.

[greenstone]

what would be the other consequences?
I guess the answer would be that there would be no consquences for player decisions.

At the moment, as a player, you have to make a choice and that choice has meaningful consequences.

Lots of damage? Two-handed weapon.

Some damage plus good defence? Sword & board. Might costs you the ability to cast spells.

Lots of attacks? Two-weapons.

If you make shield use free then it removes the consequence from the choice. What is the point of having a choice if there are no consequences?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

With this change an archer could make a long bow attack(s) then don a shield. Next round - drop shield, bow attack, don shield. Rinse repeat.

Would it break anything - nah. It would make the transition from ranged attack to melee much easier.

From a realism standpoint, it bugs me, but I've played with quite a few DMs who handwave all the weapon interactions so that PC and enemies can swap weapons multiple times mid round with no action cost, but as long as everyone plays by the same rules it's fair enough.

As an aside, I've always thought archers should carry a large shield designed to stand on it's own like an easel so they can provide their own cover.

From a realism point there are plenty of shields that don't take 6 seconds to grab and plenty of shields that are also weapons or allow you to use your hand.

Realism is usually a bad way to look at D&D.

[Misterwhisper]

I guess the answer would be that there would be no consquences for player decisions.

At the moment, as a player, you have to make a choice and that choice has meaningful consequences.

Lots of damage? Two-handed weapon.

Some damage plus good defence? Sword & board. Might costs you the ability to cast spells.

Lots of attacks? Two-weapons.

If you make shield use free then it removes the consequence from the choice. What is the point of having a choice if there are no consequences?

The issue with that analysis is that is not consistent, almost nobody fights with two weapons.

If you want many attacks you still use a two hander you just take PAM or use a double scimitar.

In 5e there are only really 3 combat choices for non-casters.

2 handers
Weapon and shield Where you could still just take PAM anyway with a spear.
Archer


Actually you could sum up combat for non-casters as which overpowered feat they took.

[Greywander]

There were some uncommon shields that you strapped to your arm, but those left the shield hand free to hold stuff. Such as a bow.
More popular were the shields where you just stick your hand through some loops and grabbed some other loops. No fastening required.
And also popular were the shields with a center grip, which you just held, no straps required. Easy to pick up and drop.

D&D, for some reason (game balance I guess, or otherwise popular culture), apparently decided it should take the worst aspects of each of these and combine them.
A while back, I was working on a "realistic" armor system, which included shields. Dusting it off a bit, here's what I could see doing:

Strap-on shields require an action to doff or don. They leave the hand free to hold and use items, but can't wield a weapon or perform somatic components.
Centergrip shields can be donned or doffed as an object interaction. They don't leave the hand free.

The round shield is a basic centergrip shield.
The kite shield is a basic strap-on shield.
The heater shield is a special strap-on shield for armored knights. It only gives +1 AC, but prevents critical hits while you're not incapacitated.
The pavise is a special centergrip shield for archers. As an action, you can secure it to the ground to create hands-free cover (total cover while crouching behind, 3/4 cover while shooting/stabbing around). Weighs 10 lbs instead of 6.
The buckler is another special centergrip shield. It only gives +1 AC, but you can carry it more easily on your person. Weighs 2 lbs instead of 6, costs 6 gp instead of 10. (Buckler proficiency is included with light armor proficiency.)

[LudicSavant]

That might actually be an easier way to do it! I'll add this to my shortlist of options. On the pro side, it cuts down on action-counting. But you still have to remember whether you used your shield hand for something else in a round.

Edit: would you also prevent the use of Shield Master feat on a round in which you used the hand for something other than the shield?

Probably.

Though I should also probably amend that wording to something that makes clear to start counting a "round" from the start of your current turn to the beginning of your next turn.

[Mr Adventurer]

I believe the rule is that you can only interact with one object for free each round, but there is no limitation on how or how often you interact with that object. So I think one could draw and sheath a particular weapon without requiring one to take the Use an Object action. If you let donning and doffing a shield count as an object interaction, it could indeed be doffed and donned on the same turn. I've quoted the rule below.

This is blowing my mind. Is this the accepted interpretation? I can see it. But it's an odd read. You can sheathe and draw your sword as many times as you like, but the moment you move your hand onto your dagger, it's game over?

[MaxWilson]

This is blowing my mind. Is this the accepted interpretation? I can see it. But it's an odd read. You can sheathe and draw your sword as many times as you like, but the moment you move your hand onto your dagger, it's game over?

Odd, yes, but it's not odder than the fact that you can take out your spell component pouch, find a petrified eye of newt, use it to cast Hex, put the eye back in the pouch, all as one bonus action while holding a longbow in your other hand... and then put the pouch away as an object interaction, draw and fire three arrows as your main action.

And yet despite all this, you cannot draw two darts and throw them both.

That's odd. Compared to that, interacting twice with the same object is nothing.

P.S. Interacting twice with the same object is somewhat controversial, but even those who don't allow it generally seem to allow dropping an object without costing an object interaction, and then you can pick up the object afterward as your object interaction (Crawford tweet here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/), "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.")... so there's not much difference in practice.

[Xetheral]

This is blowing my mind. Is this the accepted interpretation? I can see it. But it's an odd read. You can sheathe and draw your sword as many times as you like, but the moment you move your hand onto your dagger, it's game over?

On this topic I don't know if there is any community consensus. I have certainly seen it played the way I described (and I run it that way), but it's usually for doing things like opening a door, running through, and swinging it closed behind you as an object interaction. Otherwise you'd need the object interaction to open the door, and then take a whole Action for Use an Object to close it. That would seem odd to me, so from my standpoint you can find oddities in both interpretations.

Also, if you permit only one interaction with a single object, there's going to be a question of what counts as one interaction. To use an anachronistic example: if I flip a light switch as an object interaction, is turning it off again the same interaction or a different one? What about flipping it on and off really fast to make the lights blink? Is that one interaction or many? Counting the number of objects interacted with is much simpler.

[DrKerosene]

Odd, yes,...snip

(Crawford tweet here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/), "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.")... so there's not much difference in practice.

I believe there are also some tweets about how a character can hold their weapon with their shield hand, or the crook of their shield arm, as a similarly free action for casting spells that have material components (with no option to substitute via a focus).

And then go back to holding the weapon as another “free” action.

[Greywander]

This is blowing my mind. Is this the accepted interpretation? I can see it. But it's an odd read. You can sheathe and draw your sword as many times as you like, but the moment you move your hand onto your dagger, it's game over?

Odd, yes, but it's not odder than the fact that you can take out your spell component pouch, find a petrified eye of newt, use it to cast Hex, put the eye back in the pouch, all as one bonus action while holding a longbow in your other hand... and then put the pouch away as an object interaction, draw and fire three arrows as your main action.

And yet despite all this, you cannot draw two darts and throw them both.

That's odd. Compared to that, interacting twice with the same object is nothing.

P.S. Interacting twice with the same object is somewhat controversial, but even those who don't allow it generally seem to allow dropping an object without costing an object interaction, and then you can pick up the object afterward as your object interaction (Crawford tweet here (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/), "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.")... so there's not much difference in practice.
Actually, it's a bit of a stretch, but maybe this could be interpreted in such a way to make throwing weapons more viable? Like, it's not the same dart/javelin/hand axe, but it is a dart/javelin/hand axe. I mean, if we're saying that the fighter can draw and sheathe their sword between each attack, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to grab a bunch of darts and flick them at enemies.

To the OP, I'm curious why you want to make donning/doffing a shield an object interaction rather than an action? What problem would this be solving? Knowing that might help us find alternative solutions to the problem. As for a more immediate solution, you might check my last post on centergrip and strap-on shields. (I would also make strap-on shields not able to be dropped/disarmed, so centergrip shields could be disarmed.)