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?
I’m assuming you want +1 AC from the buckler and be able to use a two-handed weapon (bow) without removing the buckler.
I think that it just made things complicated without really adding a lot to the game. I’m sure they knew players and DMs could homebrew a solution that suits their own game.
Shields are interesting because there's really no details about them, at least in the phb. No description of size or shape... It's entirely up to your personal opinion what form a shield takes. The only restriction seems to be that it has to be an object that occupies one hand in combat.
My belief is they purposely left many things open or out for several reasons. One is for flavor, call it a buckler but it acts as a shield. Two, I think it is to extend the life of the 5e. They can add more gear and variants and combination of attributes in UA or settings or where-ever. In the mean-time, homebrew.
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.
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.
Bucklers are in the PHB. They’re called shields. As others have said, the shield listed in the PHB is generic. Its mechanics cover every shield from bucklers to tower shields.
The way bucklers are actually used is such that they absolutely would not allow the use of 2H weapons, so I’m not sure what mechanical distinction anyone could reasonably want. If you give them a +1 AC bonus instead of the normal +2, they’re just generic shields but worse. Their smaller size and lower weight make extended use easier in real life, but D&D has no “stamina” rules or anything like that that could make it an interesting choice.
The hilariously horrible oversimplification of shield mechanics in 5e drives my entire table absolutely up the wall. I've got one player in particular who's gone on hour-long rants about how awful 5e treats shields, and martial combat in general.
Heh. It's good times, and also an example of the cost of appealing to the lowest common denominator - if the digital toolset wasn't available for 5e ONLY, I doubt our table would still be playing it.
I borrowed (i.e. shamelessly pirated) a homebrew rule for parrying from another player that worked splendidly for bucklers and other lighter equipment. Effectively, "Parry" is a weapon property attached to buckler shields and certain other items that grants access to the 'Parry' action - which is ripped straight from the Defensive Duelist feat (which is otherwise completely rebuilt because in base form it sucks immense donkey wanger), save requiring proficiency in the item you're parrying with instead of requiring a finesse weapon. Bucklers have no AC bonus, but unlike regular shields they can be used to parry. Bucklers are smaller and lighter than regular shields and they can end up providing a much bigger bonus to AC, but only once at the cost of eating your reaction.
On the flip side, they also don't necessarily require shield proficiency, since using a buckler and using a roundshield, kite shield, tower shield or the like are two entirely separate skillsets. The original rule stated that proficiency with light armor also conferred proficiency with bucklers, just to keep things simple, but one could also do a list of what does and does not have buckler proficiency.
We've also mucked with the Shield Master feat, granting the user the ability to substitue a 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage strike with the shield for one of their regular weapon attacks. Because trained warriors with shield-specific additional training (i.e. Shield Master) not being able to shield punch people is absolutely unacceptable. The bludgeoning attack is not exceptionally powerful, but occasionally someone will try to disarm a Shield Master only to eat a shield boss to the teeth, or someone with a piercing weapon will attack skellingtons with their shield instead. its simple presence, the knowledge that they can shield punch, is honestly all people seem to want.
I'm strongly tempted to write additional rules for tower shields as well, because the game really needs this crap. Martial combat is exceptionally boring unless you're a Battle Master, and not everybody wants to be Battle Master all day erry day. Wizards really screwed the pooch by never offering the more optional Advanced Rulesets they said they would for 5e. Yeah sure, we can write our own - but why is it the players' job to fix Wizards' mistakes?
I suppose that there could be a "shield but for light armor users" niche to fill. Right now, everyone with medium armor or higher proficiency already has a shield proficiency (including those who take the Moderately Armored feat to gain proficiency in medium armor, or anyone who multiclasses with a medium-armor proficient class). Those that don't have shield proficiency can be split into those who have light armor proficiency and those that don't:
No Armor: Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard
Light Armor: Bard, Warlock, *edit: and Rogue, oops*
Its a little awkward to create a shield that keys off of light armor proficiency instead of shield proficiency, but I suppose if you wanted to throw a bone to Light Armor classes, you could create a Buckler item that reads something like:
A buckler is a small wooden or metal guard that can be held or worn strapped to the forearm. To wield a buckler proficiently, a character must have the Light Armor proficiency. To benefit from wielding the buckler it must be considered to be wielded in one hand; however, if the buckler is worn strapped to the arm then at any point the hand may instead be freed and used for something else without dropping the buckler to the ground, using the normal item interaction rules found in Chapter 9: Combat. Wielding a buckler increases your Armor Class by 1; this bonus is not cumulative with any bonus from wielding a Shield. Features and abilities that require wielding a Shield are not satisfied by wielding a buckler.
Hard to not be too wordy but the intent is... you can hold it in your hand like a regular shield, or wear it strapped to the arm, but either way it takes up that hand. You can use that hand for something else (holding a different item or weapon, making a two handed attack, etc), but to do so you must stop wielding the buckler as a free action, even if it is still strapped to the arm (dropping items doesn't take a free object interaction). But to start wielding the buckler again would use the normal "one free object interaction on your turn" rules (not reopening the can of worms for the moment about whether you also possibly get one free interaction off-turn during reactions).
Personally... I could see a character potentially wanting to use a buckler with this description, even if they already have Shield proficiency. Multiclass casters that have to manage multiple different spell focuses, for example, or Clerics without War Caster (if you ascribe to the bad interpretation of M vs SM spells) could really benefit from being able to drop a shield without dropping their shield on the ground. I guess it might need to still be tightened up to prevent a monk with Light Armor proficiency from wielding a buckler... or maybe that loophole could be left open, I dunno, it's a start.
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.
A google image search of "historical buckler" shows plenty of examples of someone holding a sword two handed while the buckler is strapped to their arm. But that's not to say that a character should be rewarded with +1 to AC while not actively wielding it with a dedicated hand though, which is what I tried to accommodate.
So as near as I can tell... the idea is that a buckler would allow a PC to carry a Buckler with a versatile weapon, then make the decision each round whether to attack two handed and drop their AC by 1, or stick to one-handed attacks and maintain their +1 AC
In D&D terms, a half-shield that doesn't drop when you drop it seems awkwardly fiddly and presents little real utility over a regular shield. You also forgot the very important addition of Rogues to your list of of "Light Armor No Shield" classes, Chicken. Rogues are very much the intended audience of a buckler-style shield, given that their entire schtick is precision and trickery over brute force.
Most shields were historically not strapped to arms. Typically only very large shields or shields that were intended for cavalry were designed to strap to the users arm, either to support the additional weight, or to specifically leave use of the hand free to hold the reigns for better control of the mount. The metal center of any hand-held shield is the buckler. You can see it in the image below.
Some knightly shields used straps, but it was less a "this thing is permanently fixed to your arm until you undo it" thing, and more of a means of offering additional bracing and support. Typically that was only for heaters and other shields used by armored fighters where physical dexterity was an issue and the shield was there specifically to deal with blunt-force strikes from hammers and maces, where the extra buttressing was beneficial.
A google image search of "historical buckler" shows plenty of examples of someone holding a sword two handed while the buckler is strapped to their arm. But that's not to say that a character should be rewarded with +1 to AC while not actively wielding it with a dedicated hand though, which is what I tried to accommodate.
CC, what you are seeing is a common visual misconception. Nobody holds a sword two-handed while wielding a buckler. What you are seeing is the correct usage of a one-handed sword (in one hand) in the defensive position. While en garde, a duelist holds the buckler over their sword hand. This prevents attacks on the inside lines, binds, and beat parries. This also provides a stable position to riposte from. It can appear that they are holding their sword with both hands; they aren't.
Source: I was trained by an Olympic Hungarian fencer.
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.
Hey, its certainly not a published option, but I think that a +1 AC that you can drop-without-dropping is useful for all shield users, and yes, would not be unbalancing to make available to rogues, bards, and warlocks. Historical accuracy is not really a necessary part of this conversation, lots of stuff we take for granted in D&D is a bad idea or impossible according to historical experience.
This is an example of what Yurei, Sigred, and I are trying to explain.
The term “Swashbuckler” literally fame from the sorts of “uncouth ruffians” who would wear the buckler hanging from the hilt of their swords. Whenever they would swagger and strut (because they were badasses for the most part, make no mistake) the buckler would “swash” about.
Historical accuracy isn't a necessary part of the conversation, no.
Historical combat methods, however, inform popular media, which in turn form the tropes and expectations of the fantasy genre that games like D&D pull from. A little authenticity never hurt anyone; it's only when people invent thirty-page rulesets detailing the precise way that the 'Balance' stat of a sword affects that sword's Cutting Strength, Follow-Through, and Fatigue generation that someone needs a Fantasy Check (as opposed to a Reality Check. Tee hee I'm so damn clever ryte?).
I think part of the problem is that the fantasy concept of "buckler" basically means "small guard strapped to your arm," while the historical european buckler is "small metal dome shield held in your hand." But I'm finding tons of reference and mention of other small strapped shields being used with stuff like two handed pikes, off handed daggers, etc... the Scotts seemed to be big on it, middle eastern horse warriors, macedonian units, etc etc. I'm not an expert (is anyone, really?), but "I took some lessons in one form of european martial art" should not stand in for "small guards strapped to the arms that don't preclude gripping something with the hand are not a thing and never have been a thing and should not be a thing."
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?
I’m assuming you want +1 AC from the buckler and be able to use a two-handed weapon (bow) without removing the buckler.
I think that it just made things complicated without really adding a lot to the game. I’m sure they knew players and DMs could homebrew a solution that suits their own game.
You could always describe your shield as a buckler (I've done this with a cleric), but it has to follow the same rules as a shield.
Shields are interesting because there's really no details about them, at least in the phb. No description of size or shape... It's entirely up to your personal opinion what form a shield takes. The only restriction seems to be that it has to be an object that occupies one hand in combat.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
My belief is they purposely left many things open or out for several reasons. One is for flavor, call it a buckler but it acts as a shield. Two, I think it is to extend the life of the 5e. They can add more gear and variants and combination of attributes in UA or settings or where-ever. In the mean-time, homebrew.
Everyone is the main character of their story
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.
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.
Bucklers are in the PHB. They’re called shields. As others have said, the shield listed in the PHB is generic. Its mechanics cover every shield from bucklers to tower shields.
The way bucklers are actually used is such that they absolutely would not allow the use of 2H weapons, so I’m not sure what mechanical distinction anyone could reasonably want. If you give them a +1 AC bonus instead of the normal +2, they’re just generic shields but worse. Their smaller size and lower weight make extended use easier in real life, but D&D has no “stamina” rules or anything like that that could make it an interesting choice.
The hilariously horrible oversimplification of shield mechanics in 5e drives my entire table absolutely up the wall. I've got one player in particular who's gone on hour-long rants about how awful 5e treats shields, and martial combat in general.
Heh. It's good times, and also an example of the cost of appealing to the lowest common denominator - if the digital toolset wasn't available for 5e ONLY, I doubt our table would still be playing it.
I borrowed (i.e. shamelessly pirated) a homebrew rule for parrying from another player that worked splendidly for bucklers and other lighter equipment. Effectively, "Parry" is a weapon property attached to buckler shields and certain other items that grants access to the 'Parry' action - which is ripped straight from the Defensive Duelist feat (which is otherwise completely rebuilt because in base form it sucks immense donkey wanger), save requiring proficiency in the item you're parrying with instead of requiring a finesse weapon. Bucklers have no AC bonus, but unlike regular shields they can be used to parry. Bucklers are smaller and lighter than regular shields and they can end up providing a much bigger bonus to AC, but only once at the cost of eating your reaction.
On the flip side, they also don't necessarily require shield proficiency, since using a buckler and using a roundshield, kite shield, tower shield or the like are two entirely separate skillsets. The original rule stated that proficiency with light armor also conferred proficiency with bucklers, just to keep things simple, but one could also do a list of what does and does not have buckler proficiency.
We've also mucked with the Shield Master feat, granting the user the ability to substitue a 1d4+STR bludgeoning damage strike with the shield for one of their regular weapon attacks. Because trained warriors with shield-specific additional training (i.e. Shield Master) not being able to shield punch people is absolutely unacceptable. The bludgeoning attack is not exceptionally powerful, but occasionally someone will try to disarm a Shield Master only to eat a shield boss to the teeth, or someone with a piercing weapon will attack skellingtons with their shield instead. its simple presence, the knowledge that they can shield punch, is honestly all people seem to want.
I'm strongly tempted to write additional rules for tower shields as well, because the game really needs this crap. Martial combat is exceptionally boring unless you're a Battle Master, and not everybody wants to be Battle Master all day erry day. Wizards really screwed the pooch by never offering the more optional Advanced Rulesets they said they would for 5e. Yeah sure, we can write our own - but why is it the players' job to fix Wizards' mistakes?
Please do not contact or message me.
I suppose that there could be a "shield but for light armor users" niche to fill. Right now, everyone with medium armor or higher proficiency already has a shield proficiency (including those who take the Moderately Armored feat to gain proficiency in medium armor, or anyone who multiclasses with a medium-armor proficient class). Those that don't have shield proficiency can be split into those who have light armor proficiency and those that don't:
No Armor: Monk, Sorcerer, Wizard
Light Armor: Bard, Warlock, *edit: and Rogue, oops*
Its a little awkward to create a shield that keys off of light armor proficiency instead of shield proficiency, but I suppose if you wanted to throw a bone to Light Armor classes, you could create a Buckler item that reads something like:
Hard to not be too wordy but the intent is... you can hold it in your hand like a regular shield, or wear it strapped to the arm, but either way it takes up that hand. You can use that hand for something else (holding a different item or weapon, making a two handed attack, etc), but to do so you must stop wielding the buckler as a free action, even if it is still strapped to the arm (dropping items doesn't take a free object interaction). But to start wielding the buckler again would use the normal "one free object interaction on your turn" rules (not reopening the can of worms for the moment about whether you also possibly get one free interaction off-turn during reactions).
Personally... I could see a character potentially wanting to use a buckler with this description, even if they already have Shield proficiency. Multiclass casters that have to manage multiple different spell focuses, for example, or Clerics without War Caster (if you ascribe to the bad interpretation of M vs SM spells) could really benefit from being able to drop a shield without dropping their shield on the ground. I guess it might need to still be tightened up to prevent a monk with Light Armor proficiency from wielding a buckler... or maybe that loophole could be left open, I dunno, it's a start.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is a buckler. Note that it requires usage of the entire hand to operate.
This is what 3.5e thought a buckler was. Note that it is ridiculous.
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.
A google image search of "historical buckler" shows plenty of examples of someone holding a sword two handed while the buckler is strapped to their arm. But that's not to say that a character should be rewarded with +1 to AC while not actively wielding it with a dedicated hand though, which is what I tried to accommodate.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
So as near as I can tell... the idea is that a buckler would allow a PC to carry a Buckler with a versatile weapon, then make the decision each round whether to attack two handed and drop their AC by 1, or stick to one-handed attacks and maintain their +1 AC
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
A buckler is a small shield, somewhere in the region of dinner plate sized, with a handle. It is held in the hand, it is not strapped to the arm. Strapping a shield the size of a buckler to your arm is basically pointless; it offers no real benefit beyond that which you could gain by wearing a metal-backed vambrace or gauntlet.
In D&D terms, a half-shield that doesn't drop when you drop it seems awkwardly fiddly and presents little real utility over a regular shield. You also forgot the very important addition of Rogues to your list of of "Light Armor No Shield" classes, Chicken. Rogues are very much the intended audience of a buckler-style shield, given that their entire schtick is precision and trickery over brute force.
Please do not contact or message me.
Most shields were historically not strapped to arms. Typically only very large shields or shields that were intended for cavalry were designed to strap to the users arm, either to support the additional weight, or to specifically leave use of the hand free to hold the reigns for better control of the mount. The metal center of any hand-held shield is the buckler. You can see it in the image below.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Some knightly shields used straps, but it was less a "this thing is permanently fixed to your arm until you undo it" thing, and more of a means of offering additional bracing and support. Typically that was only for heaters and other shields used by armored fighters where physical dexterity was an issue and the shield was there specifically to deal with blunt-force strikes from hammers and maces, where the extra buttressing was beneficial.
Please do not contact or message me.
Exactly.
CC, what you are seeing is a common visual misconception. Nobody holds a sword two-handed while wielding a buckler. What you are seeing is the correct usage of a one-handed sword (in one hand) in the defensive position. While en garde, a duelist holds the buckler over their sword hand. This prevents attacks on the inside lines, binds, and beat parries. This also provides a stable position to riposte from. It can appear that they are holding their sword with both hands; they aren't.
Source: I was trained by an Olympic Hungarian fencer.
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.
Hey, its certainly not a published option, but I think that a +1 AC that you can drop-without-dropping is useful for all shield users, and yes, would not be unbalancing to make available to rogues, bards, and warlocks. Historical accuracy is not really a necessary part of this conversation, lots of stuff we take for granted in D&D is a bad idea or impossible according to historical experience.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is a buckler.
This is an example of what Yurei, Sigred, and I are trying to explain.
The term “Swashbuckler” literally fame from the sorts of “uncouth ruffians” who would wear the buckler hanging from the hilt of their swords. Whenever they would swagger and strut (because they were badasses for the most part, make no mistake) the buckler would “swash” about.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Historical accuracy isn't a necessary part of the conversation, no.
Historical combat methods, however, inform popular media, which in turn form the tropes and expectations of the fantasy genre that games like D&D pull from. A little authenticity never hurt anyone; it's only when people invent thirty-page rulesets detailing the precise way that the 'Balance' stat of a sword affects that sword's Cutting Strength, Follow-Through, and Fatigue generation that someone needs a Fantasy Check (as opposed to a Reality Check. Tee hee I'm so damn clever ryte?).
Please do not contact or message me.
I think part of the problem is that the fantasy concept of "buckler" basically means "small guard strapped to your arm," while the historical european buckler is "small metal dome shield held in your hand." But I'm finding tons of reference and mention of other small strapped shields being used with stuff like two handed pikes, off handed daggers, etc... the Scotts seemed to be big on it, middle eastern horse warriors, macedonian units, etc etc. I'm not an expert (is anyone, really?), but "I took some lessons in one form of european martial art" should not stand in for "small guards strapped to the arms that don't preclude gripping something with the hand are not a thing and never have been a thing and should not be a thing."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.