Allowing someone to freely use their buckler hand at the cost of the +1 AC until their next turn does have one potential problem. They would still gain the +1 AC against some attacks that occur in the round before their turn in the initiative order..
I'm not 100% on the situation you are describing here. They lose the AC bonus until the start of their next turn, not the start of the next round. So they wouldn't gain the benefit against any attacks until their turn came around again. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though?
I came up with some rules for bucklers a little while ago. I haven't been able to playtest them yet, but hopefully you'll find them useful in some way. I'll copy the relevant bits here:
Parrying Equipment
An object with the parrying property is designed to be effective at deflecting melee weapons. When a creature hits you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing it to miss. You must be proficient with the object, be able to see the attacker, and they must be your size or smaller.
Bucklers
Bucklers are small handheld shields. They offer no bonus to AC, but have the parrying property. Bucklers cost 5 gp and weigh 2 lbs.
Proficiency with light armor also grants proficiency with bucklers.
I don't grant a +1 AC bonus because a buckler is too small for passive protection (and I think turning it into a half-shield is kind of a cop out.) It's intentionally pretty good in a 1-on-1 situation and relatively weak in a battle, since historically they were something you carried around town for self-defense or duels. Note: I don't treat them as shields for rules purposes, but wizards lack proficiency by default and warlocks and bards are going to have problems casting if they can't use their weapon as a focus.
I also added some benefits to the Defensive Duelist feat to compensate for the fact that I repurposed its main mechanic; you can find that (and a bunch of other unrelated house rules) over here. There's also a parrying knife to go along with the buckler.
This is a pretty interesting take on the buckler. I think it's worth exploring this route a bit. I like the fact that it gets better the more a character uses it (by going off of their proficiency). It's not as good as the shield spell for most levels of play, but it doesn't take up valuable spell slots either.
I do disagree with the thought that making it a half shield is a cop-out though. I think it makes it very easy to remember, so it doesn't complicate the game too much. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple. That is one of the main themes of 5e after all. But I guess that point is a little hypocritical since I'm complicating the game by trying to add homebrew rules haha.
I think it is that I am still not used to effects resetting on turns within the round instead of at the top of the round. Too many decades of 1e I think. My instinct when I hear "turn" is still minutes.
This is a pretty interesting take on the buckler. I think it's worth exploring this route a bit.
Thanks!
I do disagree with the thought that making it a half shield is a cop-out though. I think it makes it very easy to remember, so it doesn't complicate the game too much. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple. That is one of the main themes of 5e after all.
I called it a cop out because it's a really obvious, easy solution, but it's also a bit lazy and lacking in flavor. I think the idea of actively denying an enemy an attack is satisfying at a very visceral level in a way that a passive +1 AC isn't, and I think it's pretty obvious from looking at a shield and a buckler that they're only the same kind of thing in a very superficial way.
I'm also fine with a bit of extra complexity here because it's not a choice that has to be pushed on every player. You don't have to understand how my buckler rule works unless you actually want to use it, in the same way that you don't need to understand the Web spell unless you want to use it. And if you choose to ignore it, you won't be significantly handicapped; there are perfectly valid alternatives, and the game is doing just fine without it.
I have to agree with at least this argument by DxJxC. Allowing a character to buy something which closely approximates a Feat for 5gp is overpowered.
Not all feats are created equal; Defensive Duelist is too weak to justify taking over an ASI or better feats. The frontliners will generally prefer feats like Sentinel, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Mobile or War Caster and the backliners shouldn't be getting attacked often, so it makes no sense to pick a feat you'll barely use.
I also wanted to point out Defensive Duelist has a requirement which was not mentioned here: minimum DEX of 13.
If you're using a finesse weapon or light armor you're going to have that DEX anyways.
The Buckler being presented here is equally effective no matter the DEX of the character using it. The AC bonus comes from the character's Proficiency Bonus rather than their DEX.
That's no different from Defensive Duelist.
This means that Clod, the high STR low DEX brute force fighter can somehow parry attacks while wearing this thing. That just seems like a conceptual error to me.
You're vastly overstating how much finesse it takes to use a buckler. It's a metal disk around your fist. You hold it out at arm's length and move it in the direction you want to block. If a STR-based fighter can block with a sword, they can block with a buckler.
I also don't really see the connection between Light Armor Proficiency and being able to use a Buckler. Why do 1st level Warlocks have training in any sort of shield?
To quote the Player's Handbook:
Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat. They are comfortable in light armor and know how to use simple weapons.
So if you readily accept that a warlock has proficiency with light armor, why wouldn't they have proficiency with a buckler?
The concept of armor proficiencies is mostly nonsense. Anyone can slap on some padded armor; it's not going to hinder you much, and you'd be a dummy not to put it on if you knew you're going to get into a fight. It's mostly an artificial construct to balance spellcasters. So if we're going to pretend there's some sensible meaning to "proficiency with armor", it's not much of a stretch to assume "proficiency with light armor" implies you have experience with fighting styles that you'd use while wearing little to no armor...like sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger. A buckler isn't a weapon, and it serves a similar purpose to armor, so the armor proficiency rules were the next best category.
If anything a Buckler should be harder to use than a slab of metal which you just hide behind (aka a regular shield) because using it effectively requires more skill and effort (thus the use of a Reaction).
That's covered by requiring proficiency. If you're proficient at something, by definition you're good at that thing.
I have to agree with at least this argument by DxJxC. Allowing a character to buy something which closely approximates a Feat for 5gp is overpowered.
Not all feats are created equal; Defensive Duelist is too weak to justify taking over an ASI or better feats. The frontliners will generally prefer feats like Sentinel, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Mobile or War Caster and the backliners shouldn't be getting attacked often, so it makes no sense to pick a feat you'll barely use.
I also wanted to point out Defensive Duelist has a requirement which was not mentioned here: minimum DEX of 13.
If you're using a finesse weapon or light armor you're going to have that DEX anyways.
The Buckler being presented here is equally effective no matter the DEX of the character using it. The AC bonus comes from the character's Proficiency Bonus rather than their DEX.
That's no different from Defensive Duelist.
This means that Clod, the high STR low DEX brute force fighter can somehow parry attacks while wearing this thing. That just seems like a conceptual error to me.
You're vastly overstating how much finesse it takes to use a buckler. It's a metal disk around your fist. You hold it out at arm's length and move it in the direction you want to block. If a STR-based fighter can block with a sword, they can block with a buckler.
I also don't really see the connection between Light Armor Proficiency and being able to use a Buckler. Why do 1st level Warlocks have training in any sort of shield?
To quote the Player's Handbook:
Unlike bookish wizards, warlocks supplement their magic with some facility at hand-to-hand combat. They are comfortable in light armor and know how to use simple weapons.
The concept of armor proficiencies is mostly nonsense. Anyone can slap on some padded armor; it's not going to hinder you much, and you'd be a dummy not to put it on if you knew you're going to get into a fight. It's mostly an artificial construct to balance spellcasters. So if we're going to pretend there's some sensible meaning to "proficiency with armor", it's not much of a stretch to assume "proficiency with light armor" implies you have experience with fighting styles that you'd use while wearing little to no armor...like sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger.
If anything a Buckler should be harder to use than a slab of metal which you just hide behind (aka a regular shield) because using it effectively requires more skill and effort (thus the use of a Reaction).
That's covered by requiring proficiency. If you're proficient at something, by definition you're good at that thing.
I deleted that post since I think the argument is mostly not about D&D. It's more about whether a buckler is easy to use and that is really a matter of opinion. Buuut...
I will say this: I agree that Defensive Duelist is a relatively weak feat. However that doesn't seem to be the question here. You have created a way to get a similar ability by using an item which costs 5GP. I have seen characters avoid taking (probably) seriously high-damage hits with that feat. Based on my experience I cannot agree with giving them that with a few extra limitations (and one restriction removed) for 5GP and the use of one hand.
I still think that failing to tie the use of a buckler to DEX in some way, as other forms of explicit parrying do in D&D 5e, is a conceptual mistake. Parrying is about reflexes and DEX is the attribute which measures reflexes. It seems weird to me that a measurably clumsy character (e.g. 8 DEX) could react quickly and accurately enough to block a strike just because they are holding this buckler. That doesn't sound right to me, which to some degree is just the question of whether I think a buckler is easy to use (obviously I say "no").
Aside from that we all know that Warlocks/Bards/Rogues cannot generally use shields at first level (VHuman exception noted) so the question to my mind is whether a buckler is easier to use than a shield. Personally I think you may be vastly overestimating how much skill it takes to use a shield. :) It doesn't take much, and in fact can help balance the weight of your weapon. Warlocks have "some facility at hand-to-hand combat" which means no Martial Weapons, no Shields, no Fighting Styles, minimal Armor. It means very little facility in melee combat, less than Druids (who get Shields and some Med Armor). Thus the phenomenon of Eldritch Blast spam. :) So anyway, I definitely do not think that any Light Armor types should get these bucklers. They're tricky shields if anything.
I will say this: I agree that Defensive Duelist is a relatively weak feat. However that doesn't seem to be the question here. You have created a way to get a similar ability by using an item which costs 5GP. I have seen characters avoid taking (probably) seriously high-damage hits with that feat. Based on my experience I cannot agree with giving them that with a few extra limitations (and one restriction removed) for 5GP and the use of one hand.
That's fine. You don't have to use it. It's an optional rule, and if it doesn't work for you, you can just ignore it, like every other optional rule in the game. And if you do want to use it, I have additional benefits for the Defensive Duelist feat.
I still think that failing to tie the use of a buckler to DEX in some way, as other forms of explicit parrying do in D&D 5e, is a conceptual mistake. Parrying is about reflexes and DEX is the attribute which measures reflexes.
It's not. Defensive Duelist doesn't use your DEX; it uses proficiency bonus. The Noble's parry reaction is just Defensive Duelist with another name. The Rogue's Uncanny Dodge doesn't care about your DEX. Protection Fighting Style doesn't care about your DEX. The Cavalier's Warding Maneuver doesn't care about your DEX. The Battle Master's Evasive Footwork doesn't care about your DEX. Shield uses a fixed bonus.
The only ability you can point to that uses DEX is the Battle Master's parry, which doesn't work the same way, and they still get better at it over time independently of their DEX because they get more and larger proficiency dice.
If a fighter or paladin can react to an attack against an adjacent ally and use a big shield to interfere regardless of DEX, anyone that knows how can react to an attack using a buckler. The skill, speed, and focus needed are already accounted for in the proficiency requirement and the fact that it uses your reaction.
Aside from that we all know that Warlocks/Bards/Rogues cannot generally use shields at first level (VHuman exception noted) so the question to my mind is whether a buckler is easier to use than a shield.
It doesn't matter if it's easier or harder to use. They're separate skills, and the fact that a class doesn't prioritize learning how to use a shield doesn't imply they can't learn how to do something else. They're not related in any way. Being good with a shield doesn't mean you're good at using a buckler, or vice-versa.
Personally I think you may be vastly overestimating how much skill it takes to use a shield. :)
About the same as a buckler. Neither is particularly complicated. You just need practice and experience.
Warlocks have "some facility at hand-to-hand combat" which means no Martial Weapons, no Shields, no Fighting Styles, minimal Armor.
This ties back into what I said earlier - a warlock doesn't have much need to learn those things. They're not going into a battlefield so they don't need to learn how to use battlefield weapons or shields. A buckler, like a knife, is light, easy to carry, and straightforward to use. You're better off having one than not having one, all else being equal.
1. it should require some proficiency but idk if light armor is enough...
2. it would be nice for a swashbuckler rogue but i'm not sure how the parrying compares against uncanny dodge.
3. i do think it should be related to DEX, it's essentially a light weapon. a tank class wouldn't want to use the parrying because they get more use out of a shield. but making it DEX related then puts a bit more emphasis on character build.
The idea is to have a build that utilized grappling and magic at the same time, so the issue came up that he needed a free hand to grapple, and another to cast spells (if they had a material component). So I was thinking a small shield that you could essentially doff without using your action would do the trick. The mechanics for this shield would be:
You gain +1 AC while you have the buckler equipped.
You can use your shield hand to manipulate objects or perform the somatic components for spells. If you use your shield hand to perform any task, you lose the AC bonus provided by the shield until the start of your next turn.
This would allow the character to grapple someone, and still cast spells without dropping their shield.
This doesn't make any sense for a buckler. You hold a buckler with your hand, if you let go it would fall to the ground...
It is literally a small disk with a handle in the middle of the back under the protective dome boss.
The only thing keeping it there is your grip on the handle.
It is like saying you can use your sword hand for other tasks while wielding a sword. Like... huh?
You could drop it super fast if you need the free hand, but then it'd be on the ground.
I like the sounds of it. I would stipulate that you can't cast spells with it even when "doffed" unless you have shield proficiency. Otherwise anyone could use it and cast spells, only having the drawback of Disadvantage on Ability Checks, Saving Throws and Dex/Str attacks (which is still a big deal, but still, for a ranged caster it would almost be worth the +1 AC)
If you find it to be too OP, you could add the rule that doffing it, donning it, or perhaps even both uses your Bonus Action. I would probably go with donning.
its sad to see all the back and forth when bucklers were a major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held...sucks that they watered the new edition down so much...
its sad to see all the back and forth when bucklers were a major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held...sucks that they watered the new edition down so much...
I honestly think that they should /not/ add a buckler to the game. Use a shield or nothing at all. Dropping one point of AC for a WHOLE bunch of flexibility is pretty ridiculous. use a shield or nothing at all imo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
its sad to see all the back and forth when bucklers were a major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held...sucks that they watered the new edition down so much...
he does show how it can be hung off your belt around the 6 min mark, interesting.
Actually, it is true that Bucklers could "be (a) major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held..." at least in regards to the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook, on page 124 it explicitly states "Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it.*" This type of Buckler that is strapped to the forearm is usually referred to as a "Fantasy Buckler" as it is usually found in Fantasy novels and Fantasy games and in real life most Bucklers you would indeed hold with your hand. Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is another matter, but it is true that D&D 3.5 did allow for the usage of a "Fantasy" style Buckler.
The D&D 4E Player's Handbook handled Bucklers differently, on page 214 the equivalent to a Buckler was simply called a Light Shield that provided a +1 AC and you could not make attacks with the hand holding it. "Light Shield: You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly.You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks."
*Just for clarification: the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook (page 124) does also go on to state there are penalties for using a Buckler while using it with an off-hand weapon or a two-handed weapon: "You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. You can’t bash someone with a buckler."
Actually, it is true that Bucklers could "be (a) major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held..." at least in regards to the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook
I'm pretty sure that the part that Sposta thought wasn't true was this "and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held". And he's right, it is a fairly ridiculous concept.
If you are going to have the concept of a Buckler in 5E then I think that what InquisitiveCoder came up with is a lot more interesting.
Actually, it is true that Bucklers could "be (a) major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held..." at least in regards to the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook
I'm pretty sure that the part that Sposta thought wasn't true was this "and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held". And he's right, it is a fairly ridiculous concept.
If you are going to have the concept of a Buckler in 5E then I think that what InquisitiveCoder came up with is a lot more interesting.
I was under the impression (my apologies if I'm incorrect) that Tristan_the_Bold was referring to previous editions of D&D and not real life. And as I said "Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is another matter" that would cover your "it is fairly ridiculous" statement and would also cover whether or not a different mechanic such as InquisitiveCoder's Homebrew Buckler "Parry" concept is more "interesting" (or realistic or better), which I have not weighed in on with my opinion, be it compared to previous editions or otherwise.
I have a slightly more "prosaic" use of a "fantasy buckler" - frenzy domain cleric as mid-line fighter, not wanting to have to juggle weapon/shield to accommodate somatic spell components (right now best I can do is keep weapon unequipped, and draw it to attack, put it away to cast). Swap shield for buckler, and you could keep a weapon in your main hand and still use the buckler hand for somatic spells (or second hand for versatile weapon use...?). Could also add some serious OP, of course...
i know im late to the party, but in our group we added 2 types of shields.
tower shields grant +3 AC but hinder your own movement and slow you down due to their size. theyre also really expensive.
buckler shields (at least the forearm strapped version my character uses) grant +1 AC but are small and light enough to not interfere with item interactions and spellcasting with the shield hand, or actions like climbing ladders. which is useful for my dex based duelling type eldritch knight who needs at least one hand to cast somatic components of spells in combat. .
I have a slightly more "prosaic" use of a "fantasy buckler" - frenzy domain cleric as mid-line fighter, not wanting to have to juggle weapon/shield to accommodate somatic spell components (right now best I can do is keep weapon unequipped, and draw it to attack, put it away to cast). Swap shield for buckler, and you could keep a weapon in your main hand and still use the buckler hand for somatic spells (or second hand for versatile weapon use...?). Could also add some serious OP, of course...
if being able to cast any type of spell with a shield in hand turns out too OP, i think there is a decent compromise to be made to not allow leveled spells, but cantrips due to their simple nature.
cantrips generally tend to get a pass in the dnd ruleset, like for example when it comes to how many spells youre allowed to cast per turn.
normally you cant cast more than 1 leveled spell per turn, even if you have the actions for it. so magic missile (action), and misty step (bonus action) are not allowed to be cast in the same turn.
however, this rule doesnt extend to cantrips. you can cast howmany ever youre able to in the same turn.
a fighter with access to spells can use an action surge to cast 2 fire bolts in one turn for example, and then use his bonus action for a misty step on top of it.
here's an interesting but long video on wielding a dagger vs. buckler
it also does seem that the buckler might be more of a parrying weapon. though in this vid not as good as a...dagger.
another video about using a buckler.
he does show how it can be hung off your belt around the 6 min mark, interesting.
Thanks for all the replies guys!
I'm not 100% on the situation you are describing here. They lose the AC bonus until the start of their next turn, not the start of the next round. So they wouldn't gain the benefit against any attacks until their turn came around again. Maybe I'm misunderstanding though?
This is a pretty interesting take on the buckler. I think it's worth exploring this route a bit. I like the fact that it gets better the more a character uses it (by going off of their proficiency). It's not as good as the shield spell for most levels of play, but it doesn't take up valuable spell slots either.
I do disagree with the thought that making it a half shield is a cop-out though. I think it makes it very easy to remember, so it doesn't complicate the game too much. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple. That is one of the main themes of 5e after all. But I guess that point is a little hypocritical since I'm complicating the game by trying to add homebrew rules haha.
I think it is that I am still not used to effects resetting on turns within the round instead of at the top of the round. Too many decades of 1e I think. My instinct when I hear "turn" is still minutes.
Thanks!
I called it a cop out because it's a really obvious, easy solution, but it's also a bit lazy and lacking in flavor. I think the idea of actively denying an enemy an attack is satisfying at a very visceral level in a way that a passive +1 AC isn't, and I think it's pretty obvious from looking at a shield and a buckler that they're only the same kind of thing in a very superficial way.
I'm also fine with a bit of extra complexity here because it's not a choice that has to be pushed on every player. You don't have to understand how my buckler rule works unless you actually want to use it, in the same way that you don't need to understand the Web spell unless you want to use it. And if you choose to ignore it, you won't be significantly handicapped; there are perfectly valid alternatives, and the game is doing just fine without it.
Not all feats are created equal; Defensive Duelist is too weak to justify taking over an ASI or better feats. The frontliners will generally prefer feats like Sentinel, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Mobile or War Caster and the backliners shouldn't be getting attacked often, so it makes no sense to pick a feat you'll barely use.
If you're using a finesse weapon or light armor you're going to have that DEX anyways.
That's no different from Defensive Duelist.
You're vastly overstating how much finesse it takes to use a buckler. It's a metal disk around your fist. You hold it out at arm's length and move it in the direction you want to block. If a STR-based fighter can block with a sword, they can block with a buckler.
To quote the Player's Handbook:
So if you readily accept that a warlock has proficiency with light armor, why wouldn't they have proficiency with a buckler?
The concept of armor proficiencies is mostly nonsense. Anyone can slap on some padded armor; it's not going to hinder you much, and you'd be a dummy not to put it on if you knew you're going to get into a fight. It's mostly an artificial construct to balance spellcasters. So if we're going to pretend there's some sensible meaning to "proficiency with armor", it's not much of a stretch to assume "proficiency with light armor" implies you have experience with fighting styles that you'd use while wearing little to no armor...like sword and buckler, or rapier and dagger. A buckler isn't a weapon, and it serves a similar purpose to armor, so the armor proficiency rules were the next best category.
That's covered by requiring proficiency. If you're proficient at something, by definition you're good at that thing.
I deleted that post since I think the argument is mostly not about D&D. It's more about whether a buckler is easy to use and that is really a matter of opinion. Buuut...
I will say this: I agree that Defensive Duelist is a relatively weak feat. However that doesn't seem to be the question here. You have created a way to get a similar ability by using an item which costs 5GP. I have seen characters avoid taking (probably) seriously high-damage hits with that feat. Based on my experience I cannot agree with giving them that with a few extra limitations (and one restriction removed) for 5GP and the use of one hand.
I still think that failing to tie the use of a buckler to DEX in some way, as other forms of explicit parrying do in D&D 5e, is a conceptual mistake. Parrying is about reflexes and DEX is the attribute which measures reflexes. It seems weird to me that a measurably clumsy character (e.g. 8 DEX) could react quickly and accurately enough to block a strike just because they are holding this buckler. That doesn't sound right to me, which to some degree is just the question of whether I think a buckler is easy to use (obviously I say "no").
Aside from that we all know that Warlocks/Bards/Rogues cannot generally use shields at first level (VHuman exception noted) so the question to my mind is whether a buckler is easier to use than a shield. Personally I think you may be vastly overestimating how much skill it takes to use a shield. :) It doesn't take much, and in fact can help balance the weight of your weapon. Warlocks have "some facility at hand-to-hand combat" which means no Martial Weapons, no Shields, no Fighting Styles, minimal Armor. It means very little facility in melee combat, less than Druids (who get Shields and some Med Armor). Thus the phenomenon of Eldritch Blast spam. :) So anyway, I definitely do not think that any Light Armor types should get these bucklers. They're tricky shields if anything.
That's fine. You don't have to use it. It's an optional rule, and if it doesn't work for you, you can just ignore it, like every other optional rule in the game. And if you do want to use it, I have additional benefits for the Defensive Duelist feat.
It's not. Defensive Duelist doesn't use your DEX; it uses proficiency bonus. The Noble's parry reaction is just Defensive Duelist with another name. The Rogue's Uncanny Dodge doesn't care about your DEX. Protection Fighting Style doesn't care about your DEX. The Cavalier's Warding Maneuver doesn't care about your DEX. The Battle Master's Evasive Footwork doesn't care about your DEX. Shield uses a fixed bonus.
The only ability you can point to that uses DEX is the Battle Master's parry, which doesn't work the same way, and they still get better at it over time independently of their DEX because they get more and larger proficiency dice.
If a fighter or paladin can react to an attack against an adjacent ally and use a big shield to interfere regardless of DEX, anyone that knows how can react to an attack using a buckler. The skill, speed, and focus needed are already accounted for in the proficiency requirement and the fact that it uses your reaction.
It doesn't matter if it's easier or harder to use. They're separate skills, and the fact that a class doesn't prioritize learning how to use a shield doesn't imply they can't learn how to do something else. They're not related in any way. Being good with a shield doesn't mean you're good at using a buckler, or vice-versa.
About the same as a buckler. Neither is particularly complicated. You just need practice and experience.
This ties back into what I said earlier - a warlock doesn't have much need to learn those things. They're not going into a battlefield so they don't need to learn how to use battlefield weapons or shields. A buckler, like a knife, is light, easy to carry, and straightforward to use. You're better off having one than not having one, all else being equal.
the only issues i have with it is:
1. it should require some proficiency but idk if light armor is enough...
2. it would be nice for a swashbuckler rogue but i'm not sure how the parrying compares against uncanny dodge.
3. i do think it should be related to DEX, it's essentially a light weapon. a tank class wouldn't want to use the parrying because they get more use out of a shield. but making it DEX related then puts a bit more emphasis on character build.
This doesn't make any sense for a buckler. You hold a buckler with your hand, if you let go it would fall to the ground...
It is literally a small disk with a handle in the middle of the back under the protective dome boss.
The only thing keeping it there is your grip on the handle.
It is like saying you can use your sword hand for other tasks while wielding a sword. Like... huh?
You could drop it super fast if you need the free hand, but then it'd be on the ground.
I got quotes!
I like the sounds of it. I would stipulate that you can't cast spells with it even when "doffed" unless you have shield proficiency. Otherwise anyone could use it and cast spells, only having the drawback of Disadvantage on Ability Checks, Saving Throws and Dex/Str attacks (which is still a big deal, but still, for a ranged caster it would almost be worth the +1 AC)
If you find it to be too OP, you could add the rule that doffing it, donning it, or perhaps even both uses your Bonus Action. I would probably go with donning.
its sad to see all the back and forth when bucklers were a major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held...sucks that they watered the new edition down so much...
That is not true at all.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I honestly think that they should /not/ add a buckler to the game. Use a shield or nothing at all. Dropping one point of AC for a WHOLE bunch of flexibility is pretty ridiculous. use a shield or nothing at all imo.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Actually, it is true that Bucklers could "be (a) major asset in 3-4th edition... it was an archers best friend and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held..." at least in regards to the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook, on page 124 it explicitly states "Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it.*" This type of Buckler that is strapped to the forearm is usually referred to as a "Fantasy Buckler" as it is usually found in Fantasy novels and Fantasy games and in real life most Bucklers you would indeed hold with your hand. Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is another matter, but it is true that D&D 3.5 did allow for the usage of a "Fantasy" style Buckler.
The D&D 4E Player's Handbook handled Bucklers differently, on page 214 the equivalent to a Buckler was simply called a Light Shield that provided a +1 AC and you could not make attacks with the hand holding it. "Light Shield: You need to use your shield hand to wield a light shield properly. You can still use that hand to hold another item, to climb, or the like. However, you can’t use your shield hand to make attacks."
*Just for clarification: the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook (page 124) does also go on to state there are penalties for using a Buckler while using it with an off-hand weapon or a two-handed weapon: "You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. You can’t bash someone with a buckler."
-btw sorry for the double posts...
I'm pretty sure that the part that Sposta thought wasn't true was this "and made perfect sense since it was strapped to the arm not held". And he's right, it is a fairly ridiculous concept.
If you are going to have the concept of a Buckler in 5E then I think that what InquisitiveCoder came up with is a lot more interesting.
I was under the impression (my apologies if I'm incorrect) that Tristan_the_Bold was referring to previous editions of D&D and not real life. And as I said "Whether or not this was a good or bad thing is another matter" that would cover your "it is fairly ridiculous" statement and would also cover whether or not a different mechanic such as InquisitiveCoder's Homebrew Buckler "Parry" concept is more "interesting" (or realistic or better), which I have not weighed in on with my opinion, be it compared to previous editions or otherwise.
I have a slightly more "prosaic" use of a "fantasy buckler" - frenzy domain cleric as mid-line fighter, not wanting to have to juggle weapon/shield to accommodate somatic spell components (right now best I can do is keep weapon unequipped, and draw it to attack, put it away to cast). Swap shield for buckler, and you could keep a weapon in your main hand and still use the buckler hand for somatic spells (or second hand for versatile weapon use...?). Could also add some serious OP, of course...
i know im late to the party, but in our group we added 2 types of shields.
tower shields grant +3 AC but hinder your own movement and slow you down due to their size. theyre also really expensive.
buckler shields (at least the forearm strapped version my character uses) grant +1 AC but are small and light enough to not interfere with item interactions and spellcasting with the shield hand, or actions like climbing ladders. which is useful for my dex based duelling type eldritch knight who needs at least one hand to cast somatic components of spells in combat. .
if being able to cast any type of spell with a shield in hand turns out too OP, i think there is a decent compromise to be made to not allow leveled spells, but cantrips due to their simple nature.
cantrips generally tend to get a pass in the dnd ruleset, like for example when it comes to how many spells youre allowed to cast per turn.
normally you cant cast more than 1 leveled spell per turn, even if you have the actions for it. so magic missile (action), and misty step (bonus action) are not allowed to be cast in the same turn.
however, this rule doesnt extend to cantrips. you can cast howmany ever youre able to in the same turn.
a fighter with access to spells can use an action surge to cast 2 fire bolts in one turn for example, and then use his bonus action for a misty step on top of it.