Ah, but that is the problem. D&D 'should' care, and even used to. 5e over-simplified certain things to its detriment.
While I agree IRL, most bucklers followed the format you show above, for the sake of this fantasy game, that format doesn't solve the problem associated with using a normal shield.
What we are specifically looking for is a mechanical excuse to be able to cast -or dual wield or shoot a hand crossbow or manipulate a small item such as the stopper on a healing potion ampule/phial/vial; while still wearing something on your off-hand arm that grants you an additional AC bonus. The size of a buckler when combined with the forearm-wrist format specifically allows you to make use of your off-hand while retaining an AC bonus from wearing a 'shield'. Even a +1 bonus, is still a non-magical bonus and represents a slot that can be further magic-ed. A slot we very much want to make use of.
Hence, we should presume that a buckler designed with spellcasters in mind would go for the forearm version, specifically because the intent is to allow you to perform a somatic component of a spell while still benefiting from the extra point of AC.
No one IRL had to worry about casting spells while using their buckler, so there was no problem with having it be handheld.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Yeah, those are Targes. I don't know that I would categorize it as a buckler, but I suppose we're splitting hairs here. D&D doesn't care - a shield is a shield.
I agree. The targe and the kalkan were shown to demonstrate that shields worn on the forearm rather than in hand have historycally existed.
The buckler that we tipycally see usually occupies the hand, so the D&D version must have a design similar to those in order to be a shield that leaves the hand free.
The forearm shield that leaves your hand exposed seems like a *terrible* idea, martially. The thing about a buckler is it protects that hand, and is often used to protect the other (especially as we see it documented in some of our earliest fencing treatises). Bucklers are *fantastic* weapons. If I were to homebrew one for D&D, I'd do the following -
At the beginning of your turn you can choose to either add +1 to your AC until the beginning of your next turn, or use a bonus action to make an attack roll that deals 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
EDIT - You know what? Looking at that shield again, it appears that there's a center grip hidden behind the archer's forearm. I suspect the forearm straps are there so he can shoot with it, but he'd switch to a center grip if things got up close and scary.
So the question becomes is allowing the forearm grip buckler/targe/whatever balanced or unbalanced in the game? We would all love to get the AC boost with little/no cost to our casting but is getting it going to be unbalancing enough to make allowing it a mistake? The handgrip buckler could well get the full +2 as it’s a deflector of blows not a stopper. And by holding it out away from the body as the illustrations show it provides nearly full body coverage. The wrist strap targe would be only a +1 as it’s area of coverage is much smaller than a full size shield.
The real question is should casters be allowed a shield that is not hand held without a special ability or feat to balance it out. Warcaster and a couple of subclass feats are the only way to cast with your hands full right now. The forearm shield gives you the equivalent for free if you are allowed to use it. That allows squishies access with far less cost for the same ability and that is imo over the top.war caster is, unless taken as a variant human L1 feat, a 4 level cost to take with your next ASI along with foregoing the other potential ASI benefits. Subclass abilities similarly call for a multi level sequence foregoing multiclass opportuities or main class abilities in order to get. Those are very large costs the wrist shield and a 1 level dip do away with effectively.
Doesn't base proficiency in 5e give you casting mechanics with a normal shield as is?
Warcaster
You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage.
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
The part that pertains to shields I presume is regarding current/full shields and or dual wielding etc. I.E. if you had this, you wouldn't need a buckler to cast, and can just use the full shield instead for a +2; as well as cast while holding a polearm, etc. It's meant to be a gish appropriate feat methinks.
I don't know if such a price as that is necessary for just a +1 AC bonus and no other benefits. Some price maybe. In 3e armor and shields had arcane spell failure chance which is why mages went unarmored/unshielded. In 5e, there's no real reason why they weren't given light armor and shield proficiency by default.
They didn’t get shield because they needed their hands free , in theory alone for the material component one one for the somatic component. The focus eliminates the material (in most cases) and warcaster eliminates the free hand for somatic. Even a +1 to AC essentially for free is overbalancing and probably needs a feat or half feat.
They didn’t get shield because they needed their hands free , in theory alone for the material component one one for the somatic component. The focus eliminates the material (in most cases) and warcaster eliminates the free hand for somatic. Even a +1 to AC essentially for free is overbalancing and probably needs a feat or half feat.
A caster can use the same hand that interacts with any material components or spellcasting focus to perform the somatic components.
Components
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.
Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
Kite shields are a full-sized shield, they are the ones with like an upside-down tear-drop shape versus being all round.
Yes, I am aware. Heater shields and patisse also strapped to the arm, but they also had grips because you still have to hold it somewhere for stability.
Any shield you ever see with that metal cap in the center is a center-grip shield. That metal cap is a buckler, they just added wood around it to make it larger and offer more protection. All bucklers are center-grip.
nods. We decided the irl version of the buckler is pretty much so, the question was pertaining to the fantasy style bucker (only +1AC) which is the size of a buckler but worn on the forarm rather than gripped in the hand, such that you can hold a hand-crossbow or dagger, shortbow, et al, or cast somatic components, while wearing it; and what effect this has on proficiency requirements, and now perhaps how is it effected by warcaster, and is warcaster or another feat required for it.
A Lack of proficiency with normal shields gives a +2 to AC, but also penalties to Str&Dex as well as an inability to cast spells (presumably even if your main hand is free). Proficiency lets you cast while wearing your shield (but presumably your main hand still does have to be free); and war-caster let's you cast, even if neither hand is actually free.
The questions are:
1. Would a forearm mounted buckler allow for spellcasting without shield proficiency if your main hand is free?
2. Would a forearm mounted buckler with proficieny allow casting while holding something in your main hand without having to take the warcaster feat?
3. Should a feat of some kind be required in order to use a forearm mounted buckler at all?
Wi1dBi11 suggests a +1 to AC without casting restrictions is too unbalancing without a feat cost. I can go either way on it.
----
My character wears such a buckler now and does wield a hand crossbow in his main hand. I've casted healing word in play as a bonus action; after shooting an opponent in the same turn - without the warcaster feat (though I suppose I could just have dropped the crossbow after the shot). My total AC at level 4 is 18, and that is with a 16 Dex which I placed my 14 in rather than placing it in Con; and I'm wearing a breastplate (multiclass dip into a level of life cleric for proficiency - also with shields).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
There is no “main hand” or “off hand” in 5e, any hand is the same as another. RAW everyone in D&D is completely ambidextrous.
There should be no “forearm buckler” at all IMO, it’s a terrible design. It would offer next to no protection, in fact quite the opposite depending on the shape. If it was one of the square, concave bucklers like used more in Rapier fencing as opposed to a Main-Gauche then maybe…. But the traditionally shaped convex bucklers would likely direct blows into your elbow or wrist which could hit an artery either way and you’d be dead in under 2 minutes IRL. (That’s why they never existed IRL.)
My vote? Play a Thri-kreen from the latest UA. Then you can hold a shield and a hand crossbow/sling and a focus and still have a free hand for either loading or whipin’ out components those pesky spells that cost money. 😉
That's its own fault. I hold my weapon with my right hand and my shield with my left. I also gesture emphatically with my left hand.
Well, it was in 3e, I don't know about 4e, and 5e doesn't distinguish anymore between small vs large and wood vs metal, etc. so it's all up to us in describing the shield we use on the character sheet. It conveys only 1AC, so "next-to-no" protection is accurate enough of an assessment, but every little bit helps. Mine is currently described as [Shield, sm mtl - Buckler (forearm strapped)] if you want it to say (sqr. concave, fencing style) for descriptions sake, that's fine, but I think the general idea is conveyed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Well that’s one way around the limitations 😁 just have 4 arms and hands. Sheppard was , I think, hoping to use a forearm mounted small shield with or without proficiency and/or a feat as a way to gain both some additional AC and still have a hand free for components/somatic sin casting. I tend to feel that is (at least potentially) severely overpowered and that it should call for something like a feat. We are well past RAW or even RAI and deep into homebrew with all of this. I don’t like a forearm mounted shield of any size that doesn’t have a handhold to keep it stabilized as it can/will rotate around the arm and not provide the protection desired but I’m sort of willing to accept it if the cost is a feat, but then why homebrew when you already have warcaster.
Well that’s one way around the limitations 😁 just have 4 arms and hands. Sheppard was , I think, hoping to use a forearm mounted small shield with or without proficiency and/or a feat as a way to gain both some additional AC and still have a hand free for components/somatic sin casting. I tend to feel that is (at least potentially) severely overpowered and that it should call for something like a feat. We are well past RAW or even RAI and deep into homebrew with all of this. I don’t like a forearm mounted shield of any size that doesn’t have a handhold to keep it stabilized as it can/will rotate around the arm and not provide the protection desired but I’m sort of willing to accept it if the cost is a feat, but then why homebrew when you already have warcaster.
I know what they wanted, I disagree and think it’s a terrible idea.
That's its own fault. I hold my weapon with my right hand and my shield with my left. I also gesture emphatically with my left hand.
Well, it was in 3e, I don't know about 4e, and 5e doesn't distinguish anymore between small vs large and wood vs metal, etc. so it's all up to us in describing the shield we use on the character sheet. It conveys only 1AC, so "next-to-no" protection is accurate enough of an assessment, but every little bit helps. Mine is currently described as [Shield, sm mtl - Buckler (forearm strapped)] if you want it to say (sqr. concave, fencing style) for descriptions sake, that's fine, but I think the general idea is conveyed.
That was kind of my point - we have a way to cast while holding a shield and weapon - warcaster, having a free way (or nearly free) way is unbalanced and shouldn’t be allowed. A good way to look at it is “do you want to face a bbeg with the same bene attacking you? “ and you can’t do the same. I don’t have huge problems with allowing suggested homebrew in my campaigns because my NPCs get to do the same things the PCs do since a generally roll them up the same way. What I have seen in the past is that the players back off most of their ideas because what they wanted was an advantage not a fair playing field.
Remember Warcaster gives you advantage on constitution saving throws to maintain concentration after taking damage, and it gives you the ability to cast a spell as a reaction to a provoked opportunity attack; and it lets you cast or duel wield using a full shield for a +2AC bonus.
A buckler only gives you a +1 AC bonus, and none of these other aspects of warcaster. In fact, if you like, you can perhaps even have it give you disadvantage on constitution checks to maintain concentration after taking damage.
Perhaps it's my lack of understanding regarding the bounded accuracy system, but I really don't see a BBEG with a +1 to AC over their published AC really being able to fare any better against a party of high enough level to actually reach a fight with a BBEG where said party are likely hurling 10d6 fireball damage or something at that BBEG.
The real point of a buckler is more to give a tier 1ish character a little boost when the tiny numbers still count. Eventually any proper gish will likely take the warcaster feat anyway for the rest of those perks, and then upgrade to a real shield. Straight-up caster builds already need to sacrifice a feat slot or class level just to gain shield proficiency at all, and they are not necessarily looking to dual wield, just to compensate a bit for their lousy HP from a d6 HD and likely 13~ in Con so an incoming crossbow bolt has slightly less of a chance to actually pierce them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most proper bucklers followed this format - a small, round, center grip shield -
Ah, but that is the problem. D&D 'should' care, and even used to. 5e over-simplified certain things to its detriment.
While I agree IRL, most bucklers followed the format you show above, for the sake of this fantasy game, that format doesn't solve the problem associated with using a normal shield.
What we are specifically looking for is a mechanical excuse to be able to cast -or dual wield or shoot a hand crossbow or manipulate a small item such as the stopper on a healing potion ampule/phial/vial; while still wearing something on your off-hand arm that grants you an additional AC bonus. The size of a buckler when combined with the forearm-wrist format specifically allows you to make use of your off-hand while retaining an AC bonus from wearing a 'shield'. Even a +1 bonus, is still a non-magical bonus and represents a slot that can be further magic-ed. A slot we very much want to make use of.
Hence, we should presume that a buckler designed with spellcasters in mind would go for the forearm version, specifically because the intent is to allow you to perform a somatic component of a spell while still benefiting from the extra point of AC.
No one IRL had to worry about casting spells while using their buckler, so there was no problem with having it be handheld.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
I agree. The targe and the kalkan were shown to demonstrate that shields worn on the forearm rather than in hand have historycally existed.
The buckler that we tipycally see usually occupies the hand, so the D&D version must have a design similar to those in order to be a shield that leaves the hand free.
The forearm shield that leaves your hand exposed seems like a *terrible* idea, martially. The thing about a buckler is it protects that hand, and is often used to protect the other (especially as we see it documented in some of our earliest fencing treatises). Bucklers are *fantastic* weapons. If I were to homebrew one for D&D, I'd do the following -
At the beginning of your turn you can choose to either add +1 to your AC until the beginning of your next turn, or use a bonus action to make an attack roll that deals 1d4 Bludgeoning damage.
EDIT - You know what? Looking at that shield again, it appears that there's a center grip hidden behind the archer's forearm. I suspect the forearm straps are there so he can shoot with it, but he'd switch to a center grip if things got up close and scary.
So the question becomes is allowing the forearm grip buckler/targe/whatever balanced or unbalanced in the game? We would all love to get the AC boost with little/no cost to our casting but is getting it going to be unbalancing enough to make allowing it a mistake? The handgrip buckler could well get the full +2 as it’s a deflector of blows not a stopper. And by holding it out away from the body as the illustrations show it provides nearly full body coverage. The wrist strap targe would be only a +1 as it’s area of coverage is much smaller than a full size shield.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Well, 3e had the +1 forearm mounted buckler, and 5e is more gish heavy than 3e was; so I don't really mind adding it back in.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
The real question is should casters be allowed a shield that is not hand held without a special ability or feat to balance it out. Warcaster and a couple of subclass feats are the only way to cast with your hands full right now. The forearm shield gives you the equivalent for free if you are allowed to use it. That allows squishies access with far less cost for the same ability and that is imo over the top.war caster is, unless taken as a variant human L1 feat, a 4 level cost to take with your next ASI along with foregoing the other potential ASI benefits. Subclass abilities similarly call for a multi level sequence foregoing multiclass opportuities or main class abilities in order to get. Those are very large costs the wrist shield and a 1 level dip do away with effectively.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Doesn't base proficiency in 5e give you casting mechanics with a normal shield as is?
Warcaster
The part that pertains to shields I presume is regarding current/full shields and or dual wielding etc. I.E. if you had this, you wouldn't need a buckler to cast, and can just use the full shield instead for a +2; as well as cast while holding a polearm, etc. It's meant to be a gish appropriate feat methinks.
I don't know if such a price as that is necessary for just a +1 AC bonus and no other benefits. Some price maybe. In 3e armor and shields had arcane spell failure chance which is why mages went unarmored/unshielded. In 5e, there's no real reason why they weren't given light armor and shield proficiency by default.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
They didn’t get shield because they needed their hands free , in theory alone for the material component one one for the somatic component. The focus eliminates the material (in most cases) and warcaster eliminates the free hand for somatic. Even a +1 to AC essentially for free is overbalancing and probably needs a feat or half feat.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A caster can use the same hand that interacts with any material components or spellcasting focus to perform the somatic components.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Bucklers were all center grip, the shields that strapped to one’s arm were larger like kite shields or lantern shields.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Kite shields are a full-sized shield, they are the ones with like an upside-down tear-drop shape versus being all round.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Yes, I am aware. Heater shields and patisse also strapped to the arm, but they also had grips because you still have to hold it somewhere for stability.
Any shield you ever see with that metal cap in the center is a center-grip shield. That metal cap is a buckler, they just added wood around it to make it larger and offer more protection. All bucklers are center-grip.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
nods. We decided the irl version of the buckler is pretty much so, the question was pertaining to the fantasy style bucker (only +1AC) which is the size of a buckler but worn on the forarm rather than gripped in the hand, such that you can hold a hand-crossbow or dagger, shortbow, et al, or cast somatic components, while wearing it; and what effect this has on proficiency requirements, and now perhaps how is it effected by warcaster, and is warcaster or another feat required for it.
A Lack of proficiency with normal shields gives a +2 to AC, but also penalties to Str&Dex as well as an inability to cast spells (presumably even if your main hand is free). Proficiency lets you cast while wearing your shield (but presumably your main hand still does have to be free); and war-caster let's you cast, even if neither hand is actually free.
The questions are:
1. Would a forearm mounted buckler allow for spellcasting without shield proficiency if your main hand is free?
2. Would a forearm mounted buckler with proficieny allow casting while holding something in your main hand without having to take the warcaster feat?
3. Should a feat of some kind be required in order to use a forearm mounted buckler at all?
Wi1dBi11 suggests a +1 to AC without casting restrictions is too unbalancing without a feat cost. I can go either way on it.
----
My character wears such a buckler now and does wield a hand crossbow in his main hand. I've casted healing word in play as a bonus action; after shooting an opponent in the same turn - without the warcaster feat (though I suppose I could just have dropped the crossbow after the shot). My total AC at level 4 is 18, and that is with a 16 Dex which I placed my 14 in rather than placing it in Con; and I'm wearing a breastplate (multiclass dip into a level of life cleric for proficiency - also with shields).
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
There is no “main hand” or “off hand” in 5e, any hand is the same as another. RAW everyone in D&D is completely ambidextrous.
There should be no “forearm buckler” at all IMO, it’s a terrible design. It would offer next to no protection, in fact quite the opposite depending on the shape. If it was one of the square, concave bucklers like used more in Rapier fencing as opposed to a Main-Gauche then maybe…. But the traditionally shaped convex bucklers would likely direct blows into your elbow or wrist which could hit an artery either way and you’d be dead in under 2 minutes IRL. (That’s why they never existed IRL.)
My vote? Play a Thri-kreen from the latest UA. Then you can hold a shield and a hand crossbow/sling and a focus and still have a free hand for either loading or whipin’ out components those pesky spells that cost money. 😉
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
That's its own fault. I hold my weapon with my right hand and my shield with my left. I also gesture emphatically with my left hand.
Well, it was in 3e, I don't know about 4e, and 5e doesn't distinguish anymore between small vs large and wood vs metal, etc. so it's all up to us in describing the shield we use on the character sheet. It conveys only 1AC, so "next-to-no" protection is accurate enough of an assessment, but every little bit helps. Mine is currently described as [Shield, sm mtl - Buckler (forearm strapped)] if you want it to say (sqr. concave, fencing style) for descriptions sake, that's fine, but I think the general idea is conveyed.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Well that’s one way around the limitations 😁 just have 4 arms and hands. Sheppard was , I think, hoping to use a forearm mounted small shield with or without proficiency and/or a feat as a way to gain both some additional AC and still have a hand free for components/somatic sin casting. I tend to feel that is (at least potentially) severely overpowered and that it should call for something like a feat. We are well past RAW or even RAI and deep into homebrew with all of this. I don’t like a forearm mounted shield of any size that doesn’t have a handhold to keep it stabilized as it can/will rotate around the arm and not provide the protection desired but I’m sort of willing to accept it if the cost is a feat, but then why homebrew when you already have warcaster.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I know what they wanted, I disagree and think it’s a terrible idea.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
That was kind of my point - we have a way to cast while holding a shield and weapon - warcaster, having a free way (or nearly free) way is unbalanced and shouldn’t be allowed. A good way to look at it is “do you want to face a bbeg with the same bene attacking you? “ and you can’t do the same. I don’t have huge problems with allowing suggested homebrew in my campaigns because my NPCs get to do the same things the PCs do since a generally roll them up the same way. What I have seen in the past is that the players back off most of their ideas because what they wanted was an advantage not a fair playing field.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
NPC's can have bucklers too, sure.
Remember Warcaster gives you advantage on constitution saving throws to maintain concentration after taking damage, and it gives you the ability to cast a spell as a reaction to a provoked opportunity attack; and it lets you cast or duel wield using a full shield for a +2AC bonus.
A buckler only gives you a +1 AC bonus, and none of these other aspects of warcaster. In fact, if you like, you can perhaps even have it give you disadvantage on constitution checks to maintain concentration after taking damage.
Perhaps it's my lack of understanding regarding the bounded accuracy system, but I really don't see a BBEG with a +1 to AC over their published AC really being able to fare any better against a party of high enough level to actually reach a fight with a BBEG where said party are likely hurling 10d6 fireball damage or something at that BBEG.
The real point of a buckler is more to give a tier 1ish character a little boost when the tiny numbers still count. Eventually any proper gish will likely take the warcaster feat anyway for the rest of those perks, and then upgrade to a real shield. Straight-up caster builds already need to sacrifice a feat slot or class level just to gain shield proficiency at all, and they are not necessarily looking to dual wield, just to compensate a bit for their lousy HP from a d6 HD and likely 13~ in Con so an incoming crossbow bolt has slightly less of a chance to actually pierce them.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.