normally you cant cast more than 1 leveled spell per turn, even if you have the actions for it.
There is no such rule. A fighter/wizard can use Action Surge to cast two fireballa (1 Action) and a counterspell (1 Reaction) in one turn.
The only restrictive rule is that if you cast a Bonus Action spell then the only other spells you can cast during that turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action.
normally you cant cast more than 1 leveled spell per turn, even if you have the actions for it.
There is no such rule. A fighter/wizard can use Action Surge to cast two fireballa (1 Action) and a counterspell (1 Reaction) in one turn.
The only restrictive rule is that if you cast a Bonus Action spell then the only other spells you can cast during that turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action.
ah right. god, this stuff is convoluted. it only works into one direction, so it seems so arbitrary.
because if i understand this right, the way its worded means the ordering matters.
for example, if you cast misty step, which is a bonus action spell, you can only cast a cantrip afterwards.
but if you cast two fireballs with an action surge, you can still cast misty step afterwards since you havent cast a bonus action spell yet in that turn.
I would probably just make a Feat for this purpose. Easier to balance a single feat than all sorts of rules.
So the shield still offers the same AC. No need to make another type of shield mechanically.
Something like:
+1 dexterity score
You are specialized in the use of bucklers in combat. You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you are wielding a shield, specifically a buckler. You can also use your shield hand for grappling and interacting with objects. You cannot use two-handed weapons while using a shield.
In addition, you can attempt to grapple the target instead of making a melee weapon attack when you get an attack of opportunity.
This way the ability to do so comes with a cost (a feat). There are similar feats already. :) The player already sacrifices two handed weapons for the shield, so they should get the +2 AC. And they need a shield proficiency too, so it narrows down class choices or requires another feat / multiclassing.
I would probably just make a Feat for this purpose. Easier to balance a single feat than all sorts of rules.
So the shield still offers the same AC. No need to make another type of shield mechanically.
Something like:
+1 dexterity score
You are specialized in the use of bucklers in combat. You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you are wielding a shield, specifically a buckler. You can also use your shield hand for grappling and interacting with objects. You cannot use two-handed weapons while using a shield.
In addition, you can attempt to grapple the target instead of making a melee weapon attack when you get an attack of opportunity.
This way the ability to do so comes with a cost (a feat). There are similar feats already. :) The player already sacrifices two handed weapons for the shield, so they should get the +2 AC. And they need a shield proficiency too, so it narrows down class choices or requires another feat / multiclassing.
that seems like a terrible idea. war caster already does this, and its a way better feat.
the whole point of it is to find a compromise between combat power and utility. gaining slightly less AC for the tradeoff of being able to perform somatic components of spells. otherwise you could try to get your hands on a pair of bracers of shielding. theyre rare but let you get the bonus of a shield without proficiency, and leave your hands free for spellcasting.
like i said, if casting any spell with a buckler shield equipped would turn out too powerful, then it could just be limited to cantrips.
Center grip shields are even faster to drop. Picking a shield up off the ground and getting it ready for use is a little harder.....D&D shields don't work much like real world shields. Too little protection, not enough offensive potential.
Buclers, or similar small shields were often carried by archers, or even worn on their bow arms, strapped to the wrist rather than held in the hand.
Plate armor and shield wasn't really seen outside of the jousting lists.
All that being said, I like the idea of adding bucklers and other parring objects, batons, mailed gloves, cloaks, empty mugs, etc to D&D. Especially since the game includes rapiers, lightly armored fighters, two-weapon fighting, etc. The trick is to fit it into the rest of the mechanics.
Bucklers were mainly used by archers with them strapped to their forearm as well as in some dueling training scenarios.
D&D definitely have the shield give too little protection and not enough offensive potential.
Like you said plate armour and shields were usually used in jousting lists.
The reason why there's so limited potential is that if you could have an AC bonus AND do respectable damage, it would really tread on the toes of dual wielding.
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.
I don't have to book in front of me, but if i remember correctly, in v3 you could use a light weapon in the buckler hand. There were also spiked bucklers to where they could do damage. You would get a +1AC. Typically they would be srapped to the forearm.
Where does the idea that a buckler isn't held in the hand come from?
Bad research that got canonized in...games like D&D, for example.
For one, people think the name "buckler" is because it is "buckled." Or the fact that archers would carry them (convenient to keep on a belt alongside a backsword or something) and people interpretting that as meaning you could wear it and shoot a bow at the same time.
I mean, you can shoot a bow with a shield strapped to your arm. It's not a medieval buckler, but it was done.
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.
You are essentially just adding 1 AC to everyone who doesn't already have a shield.
Because it's a martial equipment like swords and axes? (in other words make it require a weapon master perk for a one handed weapon to give that +1AC)
Unlike shields which anyone can hide behind to some degree, bucklers are typically 9-12 inches in diameter and require martial training to use effectively. Look up Bolognese Sidesword treatises, Liegniczer, and the '133' fencing book for example.
Assuming your DM treats bucklers like offhand weapons, you'll also need the Duel Wielding feat to draw both your sword and your buckler at the same time. Otherwise you'll have to draw one of them in your next turn.
As for the question of why wouldn't any martial classes use one, they would and they absolutely did. If you look up medieval artwork, it's highly unusual to see the arming sword used alone without some kind of offhand defence tool, such as a buckler, a shield, a dagger, or even a cloak. In game there are also feats like Dueling which loses effect when your offhand is occupied by the buckler so it becomes a tradeoff just like in real life. The buckler does get in the way of your own attacks sometimes, so later fencing traditions 19th century military sabre didn't bother with bucklers any more, although i heard some British officers posted in India bought and used locally made bucklers anyway.
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.
I fence sword and buckler irl all the time. The dagger is a better parrying tool, esp against thrusts.
The buckler doesn't parry as well as the dagger because it's too round and slippery. The dagger on the other hand has all the features of a sword, albeit shorter in the blade, but even when parrying with a sword you're supposed to only use the portion of the blade that's close to your hand. Anything further away provides the opponent with too much leverage and can thus be easily overpowered.
The buckler has the advantage of being heavier and occupying more physical space, and thus can be used somewhat passively, but not so passive as you would a shield. When positioned correctly it will intercept your opponent's most natural pathways of attack and force them to cut around it in order to hit you, which slows them down a bit thereby making it easier for you to dodge or parry the attack with your main hand weapon.
With the dagger you have to actively swipe with it to intercept incoming attacks.
There is no such rule. A fighter/wizard can use Action Surge to cast two fireballa (1 Action) and a counterspell (1 Reaction) in one turn.
The only restrictive rule is that if you cast a Bonus Action spell then the only other spells you can cast during that turn are cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action.
ah right. god, this stuff is convoluted. it only works into one direction, so it seems so arbitrary.
because if i understand this right, the way its worded means the ordering matters.
for example, if you cast misty step, which is a bonus action spell, you can only cast a cantrip afterwards.
but if you cast two fireballs with an action surge, you can still cast misty step afterwards since you havent cast a bonus action spell yet in that turn.
I would probably just make a Feat for this purpose. Easier to balance a single feat than all sorts of rules.
So the shield still offers the same AC. No need to make another type of shield mechanically.
Something like:
+1 dexterity score
You are specialized in the use of bucklers in combat. You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you are wielding a shield, specifically a buckler. You can also use your shield hand for grappling and interacting with objects. You cannot use two-handed weapons while using a shield.
In addition, you can attempt to grapple the target instead of making a melee weapon attack when you get an attack of opportunity.
This way the ability to do so comes with a cost (a feat). There are similar feats already. :)
The player already sacrifices two handed weapons for the shield, so they should get the +2 AC. And they need a shield proficiency too, so it narrows down class choices or requires another feat / multiclassing.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
that seems like a terrible idea. war caster already does this, and its a way better feat.
the whole point of it is to find a compromise between combat power and utility. gaining slightly less AC for the tradeoff of being able to perform somatic components of spells. otherwise you could try to get your hands on a pair of bracers of shielding. theyre rare but let you get the bonus of a shield without proficiency, and leave your hands free for spellcasting.
like i said, if casting any spell with a buckler shield equipped would turn out too powerful, then it could just be limited to cantrips.
Bucklers were mainly used by archers with them strapped to their forearm as well as in some dueling training scenarios.
D&D definitely have the shield give too little protection and not enough offensive potential.
Like you said plate armour and shields were usually used in jousting lists.
The reason why there's so limited potential is that if you could have an AC bonus AND do respectable damage, it would really tread on the toes of dual wielding.
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
I don't have to book in front of me, but if i remember correctly, in v3 you could use a light weapon in the buckler hand. There were also spiked bucklers to where they could do damage. You would get a +1AC. Typically they would be srapped to the forearm.
Where does the idea that a buckler isn't held in the hand come from?
Bad research that got canonized in...games like D&D, for example.
For one, people think the name "buckler" is because it is "buckled." Or the fact that archers would carry them (convenient to keep on a belt alongside a backsword or something) and people interpretting that as meaning you could wear it and shoot a bow at the same time.
I mean, you can shoot a bow with a shield strapped to your arm. It's not a medieval buckler, but it was done.
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
Because it's a martial equipment like swords and axes? (in other words make it require a weapon master perk for a one handed weapon to give that +1AC)
Unlike shields which anyone can hide behind to some degree, bucklers are typically 9-12 inches in diameter and require martial training to use effectively. Look up Bolognese Sidesword treatises, Liegniczer, and the '133' fencing book for example.
Assuming your DM treats bucklers like offhand weapons, you'll also need the Duel Wielding feat to draw both your sword and your buckler at the same time. Otherwise you'll have to draw one of them in your next turn.
As for the question of why wouldn't any martial classes use one, they would and they absolutely did. If you look up medieval artwork, it's highly unusual to see the arming sword used alone without some kind of offhand defence tool, such as a buckler, a shield, a dagger, or even a cloak. In game there are also feats like Dueling which loses effect when your offhand is occupied by the buckler so it becomes a tradeoff just like in real life. The buckler does get in the way of your own attacks sometimes, so later fencing traditions 19th century military sabre didn't bother with bucklers any more, although i heard some British officers posted in India bought and used locally made bucklers anyway.
I fence sword and buckler irl all the time. The dagger is a better parrying tool, esp against thrusts.
The buckler doesn't parry as well as the dagger because it's too round and slippery. The dagger on the other hand has all the features of a sword, albeit shorter in the blade, but even when parrying with a sword you're supposed to only use the portion of the blade that's close to your hand. Anything further away provides the opponent with too much leverage and can thus be easily overpowered.
The buckler has the advantage of being heavier and occupying more physical space, and thus can be used somewhat passively, but not so passive as you would a shield. When positioned correctly it will intercept your opponent's most natural pathways of attack and force them to cut around it in order to hit you, which slows them down a bit thereby making it easier for you to dodge or parry the attack with your main hand weapon.
With the dagger you have to actively swipe with it to intercept incoming attacks.