No, there's no reason not to do it if your game benefits from it. One of my favorite old PS2 games did shields that way, just strapped a little roundel to your arm and then let you go ham with the zweihanders, trade the "timing required but blocks all damage" parry for the "hold this up to negate a percentage of all incoming damage" shield guard.
Heh. I just don't like the "you get half the normal shield AC but can sorta-kinda use your shield hand under specific conditions" rule. It feels kludgy and inelegant to me, one of those things that both players and DMs are likely to botch up executing. "Wait, did I switch my shield off on my last turn or not?" People already forget whether or not they've used their reaction at least twice a session; I'm not keen on giving them more things to forget to keep track of.
It's why I'm such a big fan of the 'Parrying' rule. It's an active thing you decide to do instead of just a random bonus you may or may not have and need to remember, it fits what bucklers were historically used for (as well as main gauches and certain other items, on top of other abilities that can grant Parrying), and it's no more difficult to remember whether you've Parried or not than it is to remember if you've done anything else with your reaction.
This is a very minor thing, but does it seem weird to anybody else that bucklers aren't in the PHB? They have a listing for a shield at +2, so wouldn't it be kind of intuitive to make a buckler +1?
Why do you assume armour doesn't already contain this? A piece of protection strapped to your arm, leaving your hand free - seems like this would be a part of every set of armour. Well, it is - called a a gauntlet or vambrace, not a buckler (which are held in the hand).
As to why there is no "buckler" in the game, consider that if there was a piece of equipment that a character could wear that increased AC with no downside, why would any PC not use it? All this essentially does is increase the AC of every armoured character by 1. If this is what you want, then just increase the AC of all suits of armour by 1.
I would assume it takes up a hand. That's the downside. In real life, you can't really wield a weapon in the same hand as a buckler, even though you strap it to a hand. Target shields can be strapped to your hand too, and you can be trained to use them without the handle (I have been). That doesn't make it viable to use a two-handed weapon with one.
This is a very minor thing, but does it seem weird to anybody else that bucklers aren't in the PHB? They have a listing for a shield at +2, so wouldn't it be kind of intuitive to make a buckler +1?
Why do you assume armour doesn't already contain this? A piece of protection strapped to your arm, leaving your hand free - seems like this would be a part of every set of armour. Well, it is - called a a gauntlet or vambrace, not a buckler (which are held in the hand).
As to why there is no "buckler" in the game, consider that if there was a piece of equipment that a character could wear that increased AC with no downside, why would any PC not use it? All this essentially does is increase the AC of every armoured character by 1. If this is what you want, then just increase the AC of all suits of armour by 1.
Exactly, and that's what happened in 3.5e. Basically everyone wore a "buckler" if they weren't using an actual shield, and it was silly.
There are plenty of examples of vambraces with small circular protrusions at the forearm, and that's just the armor itself; it's already accounted for in the different grades of base equipment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Considering that there's an animated shield that basically does this exact thing but at +2 AC... I'd see no reason not to homebrew a "buckler" that gives a +1 AC and allows the user to keep use of their hand for some kind of two-handed weapon. Call it a rare, non-attunement item, restrict it only to those wearing no or light armor, and price it accordingly (say, 500gp). Ridiculous? Yes, considering a regular shield costs 10gp, but it could exist.
Considering that there's an animated shield that basically does this exact thing but at +2 AC... I'd see no reason not to homebrew a "buckler" that gives a +1 AC and allows the user to keep use of their hand for some kind of two-handed weapon. Call it a rare, non-attunement item, restrict it only to those wearing no or light armor, and price it accordingly (say, 500gp). Ridiculous? Yes, considering a regular shield costs 10gp, but it could exist.
This is one of the problems (as a game mechanic) that we are trying to explain. An Animated Shield is a unique magical item that requires an attunement slot.
The developers have thought out the implications of AC fairly well in this edition. Having medium/heavy armor/shield proficiency is meaningful. Classes that have these proficiencies come at the cost of not having other features.
At a certain point, I have to ask the general question of "Why are people so desperate to get a +1AC for zero tradeoff?" Why is it so hard for people to not become Munchkins?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I imagine that some of it, Sig, is the fact that it is impossible to have enough armor class to actually feel protected and durable, unless you go full-on Screwball Mode. One of the players in my own group hates heavy armor with a passion; to paraphrase:
"It does nothing. It does literally nothing. It never stops you from getting hit, and when you do get hit you take damage like you're not wearing it. Just wear light armor and get a giant Dex score; you'll have the same friggin' AC, and then at least then you have fat skill bonuses for when you're not getting hit for full damage by every pissant goblin, kobold, and one-armed bandit with a dagger in a dungeon despite wearing FULL KNIGHTLY PLATE MAIL".
If you're not doing something like the AC-focused Warforged artificers that can pop up to 30AC with Shield, I can understand why it feels like it's impossible to protect yourself from even the most worthless weenies in the game.
I imagine that some of it, Sig, is the fact that it is impossible to have enough armor class to actually feel protected and durable, unless you go full-on Screwball Mode. One of the players in my own group hates heavy armor with a passion; to paraphrase:
"It does nothing. It does literally nothing. It never stops you from getting hit, and when you do get hit you take damage like you're not wearing it. Just wear light armor and get a giant Dex score; you'll have the same friggin' AC, and then at least then you have fat skill bonuses for when you're not getting hit for full damage by every pissant goblin, kobold, and one-armed bandit with a dagger in a dungeon despite wearing FULL KNIGHTLY PLATE MAIL".
If you're not doing something like the AC-focused Warforged artificers that can pop up to 30AC with Shield, I can understand why it feels like it's impossible to protect yourself from even the most worthless weenies in the game.
Wow, that resonates with me a lot. Standing apart from AC for a sec, that's what has always irked me about heavy armor. It's a zero-sum proposition; either you're hit, or you're not hit. You take full damage, or no damage. I'm a big advocate for something like Heavy Armor Master to just be baked into wearing heavy armor (with proficiency).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Heh. Damage reduction should be a think across the board. I'm a big fan of the idea that certain critters, and/or certain types of armor, just passively no-sell attacks below a certain level.
If I'd been involved with 5e's design, every creature (and most objects) in the game would have a DR score as well as an AC score. Take incoming damage, subtract your DR, anything that's left you take in the face. Easy as that. Medium armor would offer an innate DR of 2, heavy would offer an innate DR of 5. Shields would be worth an additional 1 DR, as well as an additional 2 AC. "Zero" would be a valid and indeed quite common DR score, but DR scores on things like ancient dragons would be a very, very nonzero number.
Also fixes the dumb problem of things like ropers, which have hugely high ACs despite being the easiest things in the world to hit. A roper could have the piss-poor armor class it deserves to have but a DR of 12 or such, to represent how hard it is to get damage past its rocky exterior. Damage-specific DR, and DR reduction on certain weapon types, could also help differentiate weapons, which is something 5e does extremely poorly.
NRRRRGH. Martial combat bothers me so damn much in this game sometimes. I get that they wanted 5e to be so braindead simple that somebody could teach a complete newbie how to play 5e in twenty minutes, but come on, Wizards. Come on.
It's over-simplified by design. All shields are just Shields. No buckler shenanigans, no tower shield turtles, no spiked shield dwarf tossing (but the Battlerager is a thing), etc.
This. It's just a shield, with no shenanigans attached.
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 imagine that some of it, Sig, is the fact that it is impossible to have enough armor class to actually feel protected and durable, unless you go full-on Screwball Mode. One of the players in my own group hates heavy armor with a passion; to paraphrase:
"It does nothing. It does literally nothing. It never stops you from getting hit, and when you do get hit you take damage like you're not wearing it. Just wear light armor and get a giant Dex score; you'll have the same friggin' AC, and then at least then you have fat skill bonuses for when you're not getting hit for full damage by every pissant goblin, kobold, and one-armed bandit with a dagger in a dungeon despite wearing FULL KNIGHTLY PLATE MAIL".
If you're not doing something like the AC-focused Warforged artificers that can pop up to 30AC with Shield, I can understand why it feels like it's impossible to protect yourself from even the most worthless weenies in the game.
Wow, that resonates with me a lot. Standing apart from AC for a sec, that's what has always irked me about heavy armor. It's a zero-sum proposition; either you're hit, or you're not hit. You take full damage, or no damage. I'm a big advocate for something like Heavy Armor Master to just be baked into wearing heavy armor (with proficiency).
As another option, the vehicle rules give a "damage threshhold" rather than damage resistance. That might be a good way to tackle it, too - if an attack doesn't do X points of damage you just shrug it off, but over X in a single hit and you take the full damage. It would take some trial and error (or math) to figure out the sweet spot though.
Hi, I've trained sword and buckler with David Rawlings, pretty much the world expert on the fighting style shown in the 1.33 manuscript, for the last 6 years, and my group all train with him too, so we're quite keen on very specific weapon alterations!
I am giving one of my players (and fellow HEMA students) a buckler. I suggest these rules:
Provides +1 AC
Requires proficiency with a Shield, but all Rogues additionally have proficiency with Bucklers.
Requires a free offhand to use it.
Can be equipped or unequipped using a Bonus Action (instead of a full Action, as a shield is)
The AC bonus is lost if the player does not also have a one-handed weapon equipped in their main hand.
Ok, so this is kinda complicated, but the reason is that the buckler should be very easy to pick up or unequip, making it optimum for lightly armed or armoured characters. It doesn't provide as much as a larger shield, which makes full sense. However, there is a need to avoid the following:
Make a weapon attack with 2 handed weapon
Use bonus action to equip a buckler, holding 2-h weapon in one hand
Next turn, drop the buckler
Make a weapon attack with 2 handed weapon
Use a free action to pick up the buckler
Use bonus action to equip
Repeat indefinitely, gaining the AC bonus whilst using a 2h weapon.
I imagine that some of it, Sig, is the fact that it is impossible to have enough armor class to actually feel protected and durable, unless you go full-on Screwball Mode. One of the players in my own group hates heavy armor with a passion; to paraphrase:
"It does nothing. It does literally nothing. It never stops you from getting hit, and when you do get hit you take damage like you're not wearing it. Just wear light armor and get a giant Dex score; you'll have the same friggin' AC, and then at least then you have fat skill bonuses for when you're not getting hit for full damage by every pissant goblin, kobold, and one-armed bandit with a dagger in a dungeon despite wearing FULL KNIGHTLY PLATE MAIL".
If you're not doing something like the AC-focused Warforged artificers that can pop up to 30AC with Shield, I can understand why it feels like it's impossible to protect yourself from even the most worthless weenies in the game.
Wow, that resonates with me a lot. Standing apart from AC for a sec, that's what has always irked me about heavy armor. It's a zero-sum proposition; either you're hit, or you're not hit. You take full damage, or no damage. I'm a big advocate for something like Heavy Armor Master to just be baked into wearing heavy armor (with proficiency).
As another option, the vehicle rules give a "damage threshhold" rather than damage resistance. That might be a good way to tackle it, too - if an attack doesn't do X points of damage you just shrug it off, but over X in a single hit and you take the full damage. It would take some trial and error (or math) to figure out the sweet spot though.
I play an Eldritch Knight, and with access to the Shield spell, plate & shield, an AC of 26 keeps me from getting hit regularly by pretty much anything that isn't attacking with at least +10. When you combine that with spells like Protection from Good and Evil and can force Disadvantage on rolls, AC matters a whole lot more. My DM finds it incredibly frustrating that he's rarely able to hit me with anything without using monsters that have such huge attack bonuses that they'll splatter everyone else in the party in a matter of seconds, which I heartily enjoy :D
I have more of an issue that generally, the only things that can hit me actually have to roll a crit, meaning that my Eldritch Knight either takes double damage or no damage which seems pretty bizarre. I have a house rule in my own game that if a creature can only hit you on a natural 20, then they will only inflict normal damage on a hit, not the usual double damage to prevent the whole "Goblins only hit me one time in 20, but when they do they deal 2d6+3" which seems bizarre.
For me, this sort of thing is subsumed into AC already. Whether you want to describe your character as holding a buckler, main gauche, or lantern, or with a cloak wrapped around your off-hand while you wield a one-handed weapon, you can do that. It won’t change your AC because it was already assumed that you’re taking optimal action to defend yourself.
This is a very minor thing, but does it seem weird to anybody else that bucklers aren't in the PHB? They have a listing for a shield at +2, so wouldn't it be kind of intuitive to make a buckler +1?
From 3.5 rules, you could carry it over:
[Buckler sheild +1 AC] - [This small metal shield is strapped to the forearm, allowing it to be worn and still use the hand. A bow or crossbow can be used without penalty. An off-hand weapon can be used, but a -1 penalty on attack rolls is imposed because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those for fighting with the off hand and, if appropriate, for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if a weapon is used in the off-hand, the character doesn't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.]
+ Here is a video of a person using a "Shield" and "Buckler Shield" with a "Longbow" :
There is also 3 Shapes to the Bucklers 1. Round,... 2. Square / trapezoid and... 3. Oval / tear shape. Along with the shapes you also had ............ ................. 4 Types:__ A. The flat,... B. The Convex,... C. The Concave and... D. The Wave-like.
Not looking to reopen this conversation, I just want to add that I appreciate the depth you guys went into when discussing this. I learned a few things, and TBH this is the first conversation I've seen that made me wish I hadn't skipped from 1st edition (long live the THACO!) to 5th. While I really like the simplicity of 5e (the RP is more important for me), every once in a while I want to micro-manage a game mechanic. Hriste's comment here really hit home, if it would be helpful, I should assume that my character is already doing it.
While I'd like to have a vambrace to allow a +1 to my AC plus let me use my longsword two handed, I should just assume that he's already doing it and it's figured into the 16 from the chainmail.
I have a dex based paladin in my group and we style his shield as a buckler because it makes more sense with his rapier. Mechanics are exactly the same as a regular shield and I see no reason to change this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, there's no reason not to do it if your game benefits from it. One of my favorite old PS2 games did shields that way, just strapped a little roundel to your arm and then let you go ham with the zweihanders, trade the "timing required but blocks all damage" parry for the "hold this up to negate a percentage of all incoming damage" shield guard.
Heh. I just don't like the "you get half the normal shield AC but can sorta-kinda use your shield hand under specific conditions" rule. It feels kludgy and inelegant to me, one of those things that both players and DMs are likely to botch up executing. "Wait, did I switch my shield off on my last turn or not?" People already forget whether or not they've used their reaction at least twice a session; I'm not keen on giving them more things to forget to keep track of.
It's why I'm such a big fan of the 'Parrying' rule. It's an active thing you decide to do instead of just a random bonus you may or may not have and need to remember, it fits what bucklers were historically used for (as well as main gauches and certain other items, on top of other abilities that can grant Parrying), and it's no more difficult to remember whether you've Parried or not than it is to remember if you've done anything else with your reaction.
Please do not contact or message me.
Why do you assume armour doesn't already contain this? A piece of protection strapped to your arm, leaving your hand free - seems like this would be a part of every set of armour. Well, it is - called a a gauntlet or vambrace, not a buckler (which are held in the hand).
As to why there is no "buckler" in the game, consider that if there was a piece of equipment that a character could wear that increased AC with no downside, why would any PC not use it? All this essentially does is increase the AC of every armoured character by 1. If this is what you want, then just increase the AC of all suits of armour by 1.
I would assume it takes up a hand. That's the downside. In real life, you can't really wield a weapon in the same hand as a buckler, even though you strap it to a hand. Target shields can be strapped to your hand too, and you can be trained to use them without the handle (I have been). That doesn't make it viable to use a two-handed weapon with one.
Exactly, and that's what happened in 3.5e. Basically everyone wore a "buckler" if they weren't using an actual shield, and it was silly.
There are plenty of examples of vambraces with small circular protrusions at the forearm, and that's just the armor itself; it's already accounted for in the different grades of base equipment.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Considering that there's an animated shield that basically does this exact thing but at +2 AC... I'd see no reason not to homebrew a "buckler" that gives a +1 AC and allows the user to keep use of their hand for some kind of two-handed weapon. Call it a rare, non-attunement item, restrict it only to those wearing no or light armor, and price it accordingly (say, 500gp). Ridiculous? Yes, considering a regular shield costs 10gp, but it could exist.
This is one of the problems (as a game mechanic) that we are trying to explain. An Animated Shield is a unique magical item that requires an attunement slot.
The developers have thought out the implications of AC fairly well in this edition. Having medium/heavy armor/shield proficiency is meaningful. Classes that have these proficiencies come at the cost of not having other features.
At a certain point, I have to ask the general question of "Why are people so desperate to get a +1AC for zero tradeoff?" Why is it so hard for people to not become Munchkins?
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I imagine that some of it, Sig, is the fact that it is impossible to have enough armor class to actually feel protected and durable, unless you go full-on Screwball Mode. One of the players in my own group hates heavy armor with a passion; to paraphrase:
"It does nothing. It does literally nothing. It never stops you from getting hit, and when you do get hit you take damage like you're not wearing it. Just wear light armor and get a giant Dex score; you'll have the same friggin' AC, and then at least then you have fat skill bonuses for when you're not getting hit for full damage by every pissant goblin, kobold, and one-armed bandit with a dagger in a dungeon despite wearing FULL KNIGHTLY PLATE MAIL".
If you're not doing something like the AC-focused Warforged artificers that can pop up to 30AC with Shield, I can understand why it feels like it's impossible to protect yourself from even the most worthless weenies in the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
Wow, that resonates with me a lot. Standing apart from AC for a sec, that's what has always irked me about heavy armor. It's a zero-sum proposition; either you're hit, or you're not hit. You take full damage, or no damage. I'm a big advocate for something like Heavy Armor Master to just be baked into wearing heavy armor (with proficiency).
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Heh. Damage reduction should be a think across the board. I'm a big fan of the idea that certain critters, and/or certain types of armor, just passively no-sell attacks below a certain level.
If I'd been involved with 5e's design, every creature (and most objects) in the game would have a DR score as well as an AC score. Take incoming damage, subtract your DR, anything that's left you take in the face. Easy as that. Medium armor would offer an innate DR of 2, heavy would offer an innate DR of 5. Shields would be worth an additional 1 DR, as well as an additional 2 AC. "Zero" would be a valid and indeed quite common DR score, but DR scores on things like ancient dragons would be a very, very nonzero number.
Also fixes the dumb problem of things like ropers, which have hugely high ACs despite being the easiest things in the world to hit. A roper could have the piss-poor armor class it deserves to have but a DR of 12 or such, to represent how hard it is to get damage past its rocky exterior. Damage-specific DR, and DR reduction on certain weapon types, could also help differentiate weapons, which is something 5e does extremely poorly.
NRRRRGH. Martial combat bothers me so damn much in this game sometimes. I get that they wanted 5e to be so braindead simple that somebody could teach a complete newbie how to play 5e in twenty minutes, but come on, Wizards. Come on.
Please do not contact or message me.
This. It's just a shield, with no shenanigans attached.
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
The shenanigans are awesome though. Some people thrive on the shenanigans, no matter how much Wizards tells us we're awful people for doing so Q_Q
Please do not contact or message me.
As another option, the vehicle rules give a "damage threshhold" rather than damage resistance. That might be a good way to tackle it, too - if an attack doesn't do X points of damage you just shrug it off, but over X in a single hit and you take the full damage. It would take some trial and error (or math) to figure out the sweet spot though.
Hi, I've trained sword and buckler with David Rawlings, pretty much the world expert on the fighting style shown in the 1.33 manuscript, for the last 6 years, and my group all train with him too, so we're quite keen on very specific weapon alterations!
I am giving one of my players (and fellow HEMA students) a buckler. I suggest these rules:
Ok, so this is kinda complicated, but the reason is that the buckler should be very easy to pick up or unequip, making it optimum for lightly armed or armoured characters. It doesn't provide as much as a larger shield, which makes full sense. However, there is a need to avoid the following:
I play an Eldritch Knight, and with access to the Shield spell, plate & shield, an AC of 26 keeps me from getting hit regularly by pretty much anything that isn't attacking with at least +10. When you combine that with spells like Protection from Good and Evil and can force Disadvantage on rolls, AC matters a whole lot more. My DM finds it incredibly frustrating that he's rarely able to hit me with anything without using monsters that have such huge attack bonuses that they'll splatter everyone else in the party in a matter of seconds, which I heartily enjoy :D
I have more of an issue that generally, the only things that can hit me actually have to roll a crit, meaning that my Eldritch Knight either takes double damage or no damage which seems pretty bizarre. I have a house rule in my own game that if a creature can only hit you on a natural 20, then they will only inflict normal damage on a hit, not the usual double damage to prevent the whole "Goblins only hit me one time in 20, but when they do they deal 2d6+3" which seems bizarre.
For me, this sort of thing is subsumed into AC already. Whether you want to describe your character as holding a buckler, main gauche, or lantern, or with a cloak wrapped around your off-hand while you wield a one-handed weapon, you can do that. It won’t change your AC because it was already assumed that you’re taking optimal action to defend yourself.
We've created bucklers in our group. It has the following characteristics.
Provides a +1 to AC.
Can be equipped or unequipped as a free action much like drawing or stowing a single weapon.
A player can attack 2 handed with a versatile weapon while equipped with a buckler.
From 3.5 rules, you could carry it over:
[Buckler sheild +1 AC] - [This small metal shield is strapped to the forearm, allowing it to be worn and still use the hand. A bow or crossbow can be used without penalty. An off-hand weapon can be used, but a -1 penalty on attack rolls is imposed because of the extra weight on your arm. This penalty stacks with those for fighting with the off hand and, if appropriate, for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if a weapon is used in the off-hand, the character doesn't get the buckler's AC bonus for the rest of the round.]
+ Here is a video of a person using a "Shield" and "Buckler Shield" with a "Longbow" :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E2OmVypFYI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X3M8qHrO4M&t=110s
There is also 3 Shapes to the Bucklers 1. Round,... 2. Square / trapezoid and... 3. Oval / tear shape. Along with the shapes you also had ............ ................. 4 Types:__ A. The flat,... B. The Convex,... C. The Concave and... D. The Wave-like.
Not looking to reopen this conversation, I just want to add that I appreciate the depth you guys went into when discussing this. I learned a few things, and TBH this is the first conversation I've seen that made me wish I hadn't skipped from 1st edition (long live the THACO!) to 5th. While I really like the simplicity of 5e (the RP is more important for me), every once in a while I want to micro-manage a game mechanic. Hriste's comment here really hit home, if it would be helpful, I should assume that my character is already doing it.
While I'd like to have a vambrace to allow a +1 to my AC plus let me use my longsword two handed, I should just assume that he's already doing it and it's figured into the 16 from the chainmail.
Check out this-pwyw I don’t agree with all the properties but adds depth to shields without going overboard- imo.
https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/321322
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I have a dex based paladin in my group and we style his shield as a buckler because it makes more sense with his rapier. Mechanics are exactly the same as a regular shield and I see no reason to change this.