As is, DnD has only one generic shield, that, if wielded, grants you a passive +2 AC. I'm not saying it's bland or boring, but... screw that, it is exactly what I'm saying.
First, shields can be broken into three categories: bucklers (available with light armor training), shields (requiring medium armor training), and towershields (requiring heavy armor training).
Second, blocking itself, from a passive +2 AC, could become a reaction that imposes a disadvantage on a single attack against you. If you have extra attack, you can block two attacks from the same opponent.
Third, this basic blocking mechanic could be enhanced via class features, feats, and shield properties in many different ways. Block attacks from different opponents, rathar than a single one. Block attacks directed against your nearby ally. Not expend your blocking attempt if you fail to block. Counterattack after successful block, with a shield bash or with a weapon if you're using a buckler. Let your shield be treated as a half cover, and towershield as a three quarters cover against ranged weapon attacks or ranged spell attacks. Make successfully blocked spell attacks ricochet to nearby enemies.
The obvious detriment of this mechanic is using a reaction and losing this passive +2 AC bonus, naturally. However, the benefit is that not only it is stronger in 1v1 combat, it also potentially opens the gates for dedicated tank builds and various active ways of blocking with many modifiers that can be layered on top of basic mechanic. Shield-bearing enemies would also play differently in combat, having an entirely different strategic value, forming a new type in addition to melee attackers, archers, and casters.
I don't think the passive AC needs to go, different shields for different training could make sense.
I'd rather see Buckler and Shield give +1 AC and Tower Shield give +2AC. Where Shield and Tower Shield give a reaction which halves damage taken, or reduces to zero if it is already reduced to half. Buckler then getting the light property for performing an "unarmed" attack which does not count as a monk's weapon.
I think a "reaction" that imposes disadvantage would conflict too much with the dodge action making it pointless against anything but very large groups.
I am all for giving more individuality and abilities to shields. There is a lot to consider for balance, so I'm not sure about the specifics without more thought. The current rules give an AC bonus that still helps when the wielder takes the Dodge action. There would still need to be some benefit to having a shield while Dodging. And it might require heavy adjustments to all of the current monsters.
One question I have is what is the intended goal? Is it making combat more intersting? Improving martial classes? Attempting to capture more realism? There is a design goal currently from WotC to have all fighting styles be roughly balanced, while realism is sacrificed. So people can play what they want to without major penalties. Would you want to keep that balance?
I like the idea of giving buckler training with light armor training, shield with medium, and 'tower' shield with heavy. What are you imagining when you say tower shield? Something fantasy based? Something like the Roman scutum? Something more like a pavise? Would a kite shield fit here?
I kind of liked the pf2 method, at least what they were doing in the play test. In that, you had 3 actions (no action, bonus action, move). Everyone had three, and they were interchangeable and mix and match, move your speed, 1 action, make an attack, 1 action. Some spells took 2 actions to cast, etc.
In that version, it took 1 action to ready your shield for the round, and you got the ac bonus until the start of your next turn. The bonus was flat, but it became a tactical choice of whether to ready your shield, or move further, or do something else with your action. I didn’t like their rules for the shield breaking pretty easily, but readying it was interesting. I’ll admit I never played it enough to get a handle on how well it worked, if it was just an action tax every shield user took, or if it really ever came up to not ready it and do something else. Obviously, D&D has a different action economy, so it would need tweaking to work here.
I am all for giving more individuality and abilities to shields. There is a lot to consider for balance, so I'm not sure about the specifics without more thought. The current rules give an AC bonus that still helps when the wielder takes the Dodge action. There would still need to be some benefit to having a shield while Dodging. And it might require heavy adjustments to all of the current monsters.
And now I'm feeling stupid for not taking that into account. What if a shieldbearer decides to do a Dodge action? Well, that at least frees up reaction for AoO and other stuff. Will have to think more about it.
One question I have is what is the intended goal? Is it making combat more intersting? Improving martial classes? Attempting to capture more realism? There is a design goal currently from WotC to have all fighting styles be roughly balanced, while realism is sacrificed. So people can play what they want to without major penalties. Would you want to keep that balance?
Yes, yes and yes to questions #2-4. As for balance, it's a matter of playtesting really.
I like the idea of giving buckler training with light armor training, shield with medium, and 'tower' shield with heavy. What are you imagining when you say tower shield? Something fantasy based? Something like the Roman scutum? Something more like a pavise? Would a kite shield fit here?
Scutum and pavise - yes, kite shield - likely no. Something that gives you at least three quarters cover, typically used in formation. Kite shiled still kinda leaves the feet exposed to arrows, though it's a matter of debate. I like the idea of using pavise as a tactical cover when you can plunge it into the ground and create a safe zone for archers or casters to take cover behind.
I have been toying around with using a shield in the off hand to do a “shield bash” as a bonus action for a while now. Basically the same concept at the current 5e two weapon fighting. If you take the attack action with a melee weapon in one hand and a shield in the other you can use your bonus action to attack with the shield. I have been doing 1d4+ strength modifier. If you miss with the “shield bash” attack you lose the +2 ac granted by your shield until the beginning of your next turn.
In my HEMA training, there were several 'types' of shields. This may not model into D&D very well, and is based on my personal experience so it likely will vary from other people.
Let's start with the one everyone probably has a good mental image for; the classic strapped shield. This kind gets strapped to the arm reasonably solidly and gets used in the manner you expect, interposing it between incoming attacks and yourself. Pretty simple, the only difficulty is that people when first using the shield tend to use it instinctively for balance instead of protection, throwing it behind them on an advancing attack rather than keeping it up between you and your opponent.
Then there's the buckler. The buckler is an aggressive defense. You don't block with a buckler, you parry. You basically punch the opposing weapon away. Simple interposing doesn't work so well, because there's not enough surface area and it's easy to misjudge unless you keep it in constant motion, actively using it like off-hand weapon.
Thirdly there's the center-punch shield. Celtic and Norse shields, many African shields, etc. are not strapped to the arm. They're held aloft by a center grip in one hand, much like a buckler but considerably bigger and heavier. You can do some punching, but to be honest they're big enough that they tend to be too slow for a damaging punch. It's more distraction and shoving. The advantage over a strapped shield is the mobility; it's much easier to put the shield above your head against falling arrows, quickly cover different areas, and to just drop the thing if something turns it into a disadvantage (like stuff stuck in it, or something seriously damaged it and it's just a weight on your arm now.) The disadvantage is that you are dependent on the strength of that one wrist and hand, which is usually your non-dominant hand, whereas the strapped shield is firmly attached to the *arm*. Using a full-size center-punch shield is very tiring. :)
And finally there's the Pavise. More for archers and the like as portable cover, or as part of a serious shield wall with pikes protruding from the formation. It's really too unwieldy to use effectively in one-on-one combat unless your opponent is equally weighed down by something similar. D&D combat really models one-on-one fighting, and doesn't do so well when trying to model formation fighting where shields have some significant advantages.
As is, DnD has only one generic shield, that, if wielded, grants you a passive +2 AC. I'm not saying it's bland or boring, but... screw that, it is exactly what I'm saying.
First, shields can be broken into three categories: bucklers (available with light armor training), shields (requiring medium armor training), and towershields (requiring heavy armor training).
Second, blocking itself, from a passive +2 AC, could become a reaction that imposes a disadvantage on a single attack against you. If you have extra attack, you can block two attacks from the same opponent.
Third, this basic blocking mechanic could be enhanced via class features, feats, and shield properties in many different ways. Block attacks from different opponents, rathar than a single one. Block attacks directed against your nearby ally. Not expend your blocking attempt if you fail to block. Counterattack after successful block, with a shield bash or with a weapon if you're using a buckler. Let your shield be treated as a half cover, and towershield as a three quarters cover against ranged weapon attacks or ranged spell attacks. Make successfully blocked spell attacks ricochet to nearby enemies.
The obvious detriment of this mechanic is using a reaction and losing this passive +2 AC bonus, naturally. However, the benefit is that not only it is stronger in 1v1 combat, it also potentially opens the gates for dedicated tank builds and various active ways of blocking with many modifiers that can be layered on top of basic mechanic. Shield-bearing enemies would also play differently in combat, having an entirely different strategic value, forming a new type in addition to melee attackers, archers, and casters.
The problem with Bucklers = Light Armor, Shields = Medium Armor, Tower Shields = Heavy Armor is that's very nearly backwards of how shields were really used historically. Bucklers were never battle field impliments. They were carried in town and used for self defense and dueling, but typically, the less armor, they bigger the shield. Hoplites and Roman Soldiers, who were relatively lightly armored compaired to medival soldiers, carried much bigger shields. In medival warfare, as plate and brigandine became more common, shields got smaller or disappeared for knights, while they got bigger and became portable cover for archers. This is all a simplication, of course, but the general idea holds.
I would suggest something more like Buckler, shield, Parvas. Buckler's give a +2 to AC if the user is in light armor, and can be used to make an off hand attack for 1D4 Blugeoning, and have the Finess property. Shields give a +3 to light armor, a +2 to medium armor or heavy armor, but can't boost AC above 18 unless the character has an unarmored defense feature like the Barbarian or the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. I'd also say give characters a number of parry's equal to their proficiency bonus that they can use to bump the armor bonus to +5 (like casting the shield spell). Have these reset on a long rest, but certain classes get a feature that lets them reset parrys on a short rest.
The problem with Bucklers = Light Armor, Shields = Medium Armor, Tower Shields = Heavy Armor is that's very nearly backwards of how shields were really used historically. Bucklers were never battle field impliments. They were carried in town and used for self defense and dueling, but typically, the less armor, they bigger the shield. Hoplites and Roman Soldiers, who were relatively lightly armored compaired to medival soldiers, carried much bigger shields. In medival warfare, as plate and brigandine became more common, shields got smaller or disappeared for knights, while they got bigger and became portable cover for archers. This is all a simplication, of course, but the general idea holds.
I would suggest something more like Buckler, shield, Parvas. Buckler's give a +2 to AC if the user is in light armor, and can be used to make an off hand attack for 1D4 Blugeoning, and have the Finess property. Shields give a +3 to light armor, a +2 to medium armor or heavy armor, but can't boost AC above 18 unless the character has an unarmored defense feature like the Barbarian or the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. I'd also say give characters a number of parry's equal to their proficiency bonus that they can use to bump the armor bonus to +5 (like casting the shield spell). Have these reset on a long rest, but certain classes get a feature that lets them reset parrys on a short rest.
I'm aware of shield/armor category thing, but the game kind of needs some simplification. Besides, it just so happens that the classes that are most fitting to use a pavise or scutum are also the ones that have heavy armor training: fighters and paladins. I know bucklers were meant for duels rather than warfare, but then again, so were rapiers.
The reality is that weapons, armor, and the way we used them evolved over time. People throughout history tended to use the best possible fighting style for their technology level, culture, environmental conditions, resources, and the the fights that they expected to get into.
DnD tries to make every fantasy playable to some degree. There is no real reason a party would go into a dungeon with one member in full plate with shield and warhammer, one with a rapier and a scimitar, one with a longbow, one with nothing but some fur and their anger management issues, and one with dual hand-crossbows.
Not only did these fighting styles not usually coexist in time or location historically, some of them were never used by anyone. But people have different ideas of what makes a character 'cool,' and reality doesn't factor high in the decision making process.
But everyone also gets upset when their idea of cool isn't as strong mechanically as other options. They want them all to be 'balanced.' So we end up characters swinging dual longswords to attack, and loading crossbows with their teeth. And what was historically only very effectively in a unit of soldiers all armed the same, is forced to be just as effective used solo. Even when it doesn't make sense.
I personally can't stand some of the current options from a historical perspective. But when playing a game, I think cool should win out over accuracy. And some semblance of balance is necessary or everyone complains.
So what is the answer?
One option would be to create settings where characters only fight with real world analogies to their location and time period. If everyone is playing in Ancient Greece, then that's the only fighting styles, weapons, and armor available. Balance doesn't matter. Because the best tool for the job is going to be dependant on the particular job. And characters will arm up differently depending on the fight ahead of them. This would be fun for a lot of people, but it's not the broad fantasy DnD offers.
Another option would be to stop worrying about historical accuracy at all. Make every cool option equally viable. It's all about balance. Explain it away with 'magic' if anyone asks. That's what DnD currently is.
Another option is to forget balance. All time periods and fighting styles are available. But some options are just going to suck against others. Learn to just accept it. You shouldn't have brought your cool throwing daggers style to the heavy calvary battle. DnD currently is not this.
Or lastly, you can try to make everything work a little bit. It's mostly balanced, and it's mostly accurate, and most of the options are there. No one is 100% happy, but maybe it's good enough. That's what a lot of suggestions like these attempt to do. The only thing people argue about depends on which things they find more important - realism, options, or balance.
I kind of liked the pf2 method, at least what they were doing in the play test. In that, you had 3 actions (no action, bonus action, move). Everyone had three, and they were interchangeable and mix and match, move your speed, 1 action, make an attack, 1 action. Some spells took 2 actions to cast, etc.
In that version, it took 1 action to ready your shield for the round, and you got the ac bonus until the start of your next turn. The bonus was flat, but it became a tactical choice of whether to ready your shield, or move further, or do something else with your action. I didn’t like their rules for the shield breaking pretty easily, but readying it was interesting. I’ll admit I never played it enough to get a handle on how well it worked, if it was just an action tax every shield user took, or if it really ever came up to not ready it and do something else. Obviously, D&D has a different action economy, so it would need tweaking to work here.
Requiring a Bonus Action to "activate" a shield is an interesting idea, though it would mostly add an additional tax to shield users and shields are already kind of bad for martial characters.
I have been toying around with using a shield in the off hand to do a “shield bash” as a bonus action for a while now. Basically the same concept at the current 5e two weapon fighting. If you take the attack action with a melee weapon in one hand and a shield in the other you can use your bonus action to attack with the shield. I have been doing 1d4+ strength modifier. If you miss with the “shield bash” attack you lose the +2 ac granted by your shield until the beginning of your next turn.
This is almost already supported in the rules, a shield can be used as an improvised weapon for 1d4+STR damage.
The Pavise I would argue isn't really a shield, it is a piece of equipment that could be added to the game completely separate from shields.
Pavise
Two-Handed Item You can use an action to make an Athletics check (DC 10) to thrust the Pavise into the ground causing it to occupy a 5ft cube. It provides 3/4 cover against ranged attacks that pass through its space.
Oh, and there is a fifth kind of shield, but I never got a chance to work with one so this is more theoretical than practical. Dueling shields are in many ways regular shields with a variety of spikes, hooks, and whatnot all over them. I am aware of three forms: the simplest of which is really a small shield or heavy buckler with a spike in the center. A good example of this is the Scottish targe, but I'm aware of it showing up all over the place, like India, Mongolia, etc.
Then there's the Italian lantern shield which also has a lantern built into it for night-time duels, or may have a gauntlet built into it so you can hold a lantern at the same time as equipping the shield.
And the weirdest one, the Germanic long shield, a large rectangular shield with a long single grip for one- and two-handed use, and usually has spikes and large hooks at either end. This was for trials by combat, or 'judicial duels' which often used unwieldy weapons or weird terrain in order to make the duel more difficult.
I really, really wanted to try a long shield while I was doing this kind of thing, but like a lot of things (falx, yumi, etc.) the opportunity never came up at the time, and my arthritis is now too bad to actually spar.
Sorry if I am a bit late to the party, but I'ma share my thoughts anyways. Not only do a think that weapons and shields are kinda boring, but I think the idea that shields can help solve the problem of fewer hits per an attack roll at low levels and more hits at higher levels. Because to hit bonuses become really high, and armor class doesn't fully scale with it. So here is how I think shields can help solve that problem, while also expanding the amount of types of shield options people can use to allow for more customization options and to realistically reflect the variety of roles shields can be used for:
Small Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with proficiency in light armor): AC boost equal to 1 + 1/3 of proficiency bonus rounded down while wielding
Regular Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with proficiency in light armor): AC boost equal to 1 + 1/2 proficiency bonus rounded down while wielding
Big Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with a strength score of 17 or higher and proficiency in heavy armor): AC boost equal to your proficiency bonus while wielding
Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for the idea of using your proficiency bonus for a shield, nor can I claim credit for using it to solve some of the problems I mentioned earlier. These designs were inspired by some ideas that ThorukDuckSlayer and others shared over on this thread. These designs could be modified and these are just placeholder names, but I am eager to see what people think about them all the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Sorry if I am a bit late to the party, but I'ma share my thoughts anyways. Not only do a think that weapons and shields are kinda boring, but I think the idea that shields can help solve the problem of fewer hits per an attack roll at low levels and more hits at higher levels. Because to hit bonuses become really high, and armor class doesn't fully scale with it. So here is how I think shields can help solve that problem.
This isn't a problem actually, it is IMO very good game design because those high CR monsters are meant to be fought as one-vs-many boss encounters. In those instances we as game designers want the enemy to feel threatening over a relatively few rounds of combat, so it should be dealing 50-75% of a PCs total HP each round on average. Now consider the variability that happens depending on the chance a monster has to hit: Assuming the monster makes 3 attacks per round, then at a 50% chance to hit and has expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP, then there is a 12% chance it takes a PC from max HP to 0 in a single round, whereas a monster with a 90% chance to hit and expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP cannot do that. These numbers only become more extreme if you consider that at high levels martials (often) have higher AC and higher hit points than casters thus making it so that a monster with expected DPR of 50% of a martial's HP is almost guaranteed to drop a caster in one round.
To be more mathy: A monster with 90% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of 1.1 times their average damage, whereas a monster with 50% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of double their average damage, and a monster with 25% chance to hit will deal a maximum damage of 4-times their average damage. [Always excluding critical hits here].
Strategies to reduce the variability of the damage dealt by a monster each round (i.e. the difference in damage for a monster getting lucky vs getting unlucky) without reducing its average DPR are: increasing the attacks per round (i.e. legendary actions, multiattack), and increasing its chance to hit, using saving throws for 1/2 damage rather than attack rolls. Generally you will in 5e that "boss" monsters generally use all three of these strategies - so that they can be balanced to feel deadly to the PCs without having a high chance of TPKing the party.
This isn't a problem actually, it is IMO very good game design because those high CR monsters are meant to be fought as one-vs-many boss encounters. In those instances we as game designers want the enemy to feel threatening over a relatively few rounds of combat, so it should be dealing 50-75% of a PCs total HP each round on average. Now consider the variability that happens depending on the chance a monster has to hit: Assuming the monster makes 3 attacks per round, then at a 50% chance to hit and has expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP, then there is a 12% chance it takes a PC from max HP to 0 in a single round, whereas a monster with a 90% chance to hit and expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP cannot do that. These numbers only become more extreme if you consider that at high levels martials (often) have higher AC and higher hit points than casters thus making it so that a monster with expected DPR of 50% of a martial's HP is almost guaranteed to drop a caster in one round.
To be more mathy: A monster with 90% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of 1.1 times their average damage, whereas a monster with 50% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of double their average damage, and a monster with 25% chance to hit will deal a maximum damage of 4-times their average damage. [Always excluding critical hits here].
Strategies to reduce the variability of the damage dealt by a monster each round (i.e. the difference in damage for a monster getting lucky vs getting unlucky) without reducing its average DPR are: increasing the attacks per round (i.e. legendary actions, multiattack), and increasing its chance to hit, using saving throws for 1/2 damage rather than attack rolls. Generally you will in 5e that "boss" monsters generally use all three of these strategies - so that they can be balanced to feel deadly to the PCs without having a high chance of TPKing the party.
First of all, you seem to be saying that boss monsters have to be scary "over a relatively few rounds of combat," but they could also be scary by just being alive in combat over more rounds. The one benefit that this system gives is making the monster more scary because it is more likely to deal damage. But there are numerous other ways to make monsters scary, and by having basically every attack hit, this system makes combat boring and predictable. So, this element of "very good game design" serves more to make combats with boss monsters dull and repetitive much more than it serves to make the monsters scary.
Not only that, but as I said, there are numerous other ways to make boss monsters feel scary if you are deadset on making them scary in a relatively few rounds of combat. For example, use more saving throw effects, have the monster make more attacks without as big a bonus and damage, or just boost up the damage to make each attack scary. In my opinion at least, this is a very bad system and it needs to be fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Please, let's not ask to complicate the game with unnecessary mechanics. The +2 to AC is enough. You have to understand that the mechanics in a game are an abstraction, they do not necessarily have to faithfully reflect reality. They just have to work in the game they are implemented. The advantage of 5e compared to previous editions is that its mechanics are simple and relatively easy to understand. If we start to complicate the game with little stuff, it will happen like in 3.5 (or its heirs like pathfinder). And that's fine, but that's what these games are for. 5e, luckily, and quite successfully, seeks another gaming experience.
Not only that, but as I said, there are numerous other ways to make boss monsters feel scary if you are deadset on making them scary in a relatively few rounds of combat. For example, use more saving throw effects, have the monster make more attacks without as big a bonus and damage, or just boost up the damage to make each attack scary. In my opinion at least, this is a very bad system and it needs to be fixed.
High CR monsters do usually have saving throw effects as I noted, saving throws for 1/2 damage are the most effective to moderate expected damage but they also make AC stacking utterly irrelevant. Boss monsters already make ~6 attacks per round, this would have to double if their accuracy is halved which becomes a lot of rolling and a lot of time (people already complain about 16 Conjured animals making an attack each round taking too long). Just boosting damage of attacks makes the game more swingy (i.e. if the enemies get a little bit lucky and e.g. roll two critical hits in the first round then it will lead to a TPK) so makes it harder for DMs to balance encounters so they feel dangerous but don't actually have a very high chance of a TPK - If Deadly encounters really had a 20% chance of TPK then most campaigns would end in a TPK before level 6-7.
As is, DnD has only one generic shield, that, if wielded, grants you a passive +2 AC. I'm not saying it's bland or boring, but... screw that, it is exactly what I'm saying.
First, shields can be broken into three categories: bucklers (available with light armor training), shields (requiring medium armor training), and towershields (requiring heavy armor training).
Second, blocking itself, from a passive +2 AC, could become a reaction that imposes a disadvantage on a single attack against you. If you have extra attack, you can block two attacks from the same opponent.
Third, this basic blocking mechanic could be enhanced via class features, feats, and shield properties in many different ways. Block attacks from different opponents, rathar than a single one. Block attacks directed against your nearby ally. Not expend your blocking attempt if you fail to block. Counterattack after successful block, with a shield bash or with a weapon if you're using a buckler. Let your shield be treated as a half cover, and towershield as a three quarters cover against ranged weapon attacks or ranged spell attacks. Make successfully blocked spell attacks ricochet to nearby enemies.
The obvious detriment of this mechanic is using a reaction and losing this passive +2 AC bonus, naturally. However, the benefit is that not only it is stronger in 1v1 combat, it also potentially opens the gates for dedicated tank builds and various active ways of blocking with many modifiers that can be layered on top of basic mechanic. Shield-bearing enemies would also play differently in combat, having an entirely different strategic value, forming a new type in addition to melee attackers, archers, and casters.
I don't think the passive AC needs to go, different shields for different training could make sense.
I'd rather see Buckler and Shield give +1 AC and Tower Shield give +2AC. Where Shield and Tower Shield give a reaction which halves damage taken, or reduces to zero if it is already reduced to half. Buckler then getting the light property for performing an "unarmed" attack which does not count as a monk's weapon.
I think a "reaction" that imposes disadvantage would conflict too much with the dodge action making it pointless against anything but very large groups.
I am all for giving more individuality and abilities to shields. There is a lot to consider for balance, so I'm not sure about the specifics without more thought. The current rules give an AC bonus that still helps when the wielder takes the Dodge action. There would still need to be some benefit to having a shield while Dodging. And it might require heavy adjustments to all of the current monsters.
One question I have is what is the intended goal? Is it making combat more intersting? Improving martial classes? Attempting to capture more realism? There is a design goal currently from WotC to have all fighting styles be roughly balanced, while realism is sacrificed. So people can play what they want to without major penalties. Would you want to keep that balance?
I like the idea of giving buckler training with light armor training, shield with medium, and 'tower' shield with heavy. What are you imagining when you say tower shield? Something fantasy based? Something like the Roman scutum? Something more like a pavise? Would a kite shield fit here?
I kind of liked the pf2 method, at least what they were doing in the play test. In that, you had 3 actions (no action, bonus action, move). Everyone had three, and they were interchangeable and mix and match, move your speed, 1 action, make an attack, 1 action. Some spells took 2 actions to cast, etc.
In that version, it took 1 action to ready your shield for the round, and you got the ac bonus until the start of your next turn. The bonus was flat, but it became a tactical choice of whether to ready your shield, or move further, or do something else with your action.
I didn’t like their rules for the shield breaking pretty easily, but readying it was interesting.
I’ll admit I never played it enough to get a handle on how well it worked, if it was just an action tax every shield user took, or if it really ever came up to not ready it and do something else.
Obviously, D&D has a different action economy, so it would need tweaking to work here.
And now I'm feeling stupid for not taking that into account. What if a shieldbearer decides to do a Dodge action? Well, that at least frees up reaction for AoO and other stuff. Will have to think more about it.
Yes, yes and yes to questions #2-4. As for balance, it's a matter of playtesting really.
Scutum and pavise - yes, kite shield - likely no. Something that gives you at least three quarters cover, typically used in formation. Kite shiled still kinda leaves the feet exposed to arrows, though it's a matter of debate. I like the idea of using pavise as a tactical cover when you can plunge it into the ground and create a safe zone for archers or casters to take cover behind.
I have been toying around with using a shield in the off hand to do a “shield bash” as a bonus action for a while now. Basically the same concept at the current 5e two weapon fighting. If you take the attack action with a melee weapon in one hand and a shield in the other you can use your bonus action to attack with the shield. I have been doing 1d4+ strength modifier. If you miss with the “shield bash” attack you lose the +2 ac granted by your shield until the beginning of your next turn.
In my HEMA training, there were several 'types' of shields. This may not model into D&D very well, and is based on my personal experience so it likely will vary from other people.
Let's start with the one everyone probably has a good mental image for; the classic strapped shield. This kind gets strapped to the arm reasonably solidly and gets used in the manner you expect, interposing it between incoming attacks and yourself. Pretty simple, the only difficulty is that people when first using the shield tend to use it instinctively for balance instead of protection, throwing it behind them on an advancing attack rather than keeping it up between you and your opponent.
Then there's the buckler. The buckler is an aggressive defense. You don't block with a buckler, you parry. You basically punch the opposing weapon away. Simple interposing doesn't work so well, because there's not enough surface area and it's easy to misjudge unless you keep it in constant motion, actively using it like off-hand weapon.
Thirdly there's the center-punch shield. Celtic and Norse shields, many African shields, etc. are not strapped to the arm. They're held aloft by a center grip in one hand, much like a buckler but considerably bigger and heavier. You can do some punching, but to be honest they're big enough that they tend to be too slow for a damaging punch. It's more distraction and shoving. The advantage over a strapped shield is the mobility; it's much easier to put the shield above your head against falling arrows, quickly cover different areas, and to just drop the thing if something turns it into a disadvantage (like stuff stuck in it, or something seriously damaged it and it's just a weight on your arm now.) The disadvantage is that you are dependent on the strength of that one wrist and hand, which is usually your non-dominant hand, whereas the strapped shield is firmly attached to the *arm*. Using a full-size center-punch shield is very tiring. :)
And finally there's the Pavise. More for archers and the like as portable cover, or as part of a serious shield wall with pikes protruding from the formation. It's really too unwieldy to use effectively in one-on-one combat unless your opponent is equally weighed down by something similar. D&D combat really models one-on-one fighting, and doesn't do so well when trying to model formation fighting where shields have some significant advantages.
The problem with Bucklers = Light Armor, Shields = Medium Armor, Tower Shields = Heavy Armor is that's very nearly backwards of how shields were really used historically. Bucklers were never battle field impliments. They were carried in town and used for self defense and dueling, but typically, the less armor, they bigger the shield. Hoplites and Roman Soldiers, who were relatively lightly armored compaired to medival soldiers, carried much bigger shields. In medival warfare, as plate and brigandine became more common, shields got smaller or disappeared for knights, while they got bigger and became portable cover for archers. This is all a simplication, of course, but the general idea holds.
I would suggest something more like Buckler, shield, Parvas. Buckler's give a +2 to AC if the user is in light armor, and can be used to make an off hand attack for 1D4 Blugeoning, and have the Finess property. Shields give a +3 to light armor, a +2 to medium armor or heavy armor, but can't boost AC above 18 unless the character has an unarmored defense feature like the Barbarian or the Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer. I'd also say give characters a number of parry's equal to their proficiency bonus that they can use to bump the armor bonus to +5 (like casting the shield spell). Have these reset on a long rest, but certain classes get a feature that lets them reset parrys on a short rest.
I'm aware of shield/armor category thing, but the game kind of needs some simplification. Besides, it just so happens that the classes that are most fitting to use a pavise or scutum are also the ones that have heavy armor training: fighters and paladins. I know bucklers were meant for duels rather than warfare, but then again, so were rapiers.
The reality is that weapons, armor, and the way we used them evolved over time. People throughout history tended to use the best possible fighting style for their technology level, culture, environmental conditions, resources, and the the fights that they expected to get into.
DnD tries to make every fantasy playable to some degree. There is no real reason a party would go into a dungeon with one member in full plate with shield and warhammer, one with a rapier and a scimitar, one with a longbow, one with nothing but some fur and their anger management issues, and one with dual hand-crossbows.
Not only did these fighting styles not usually coexist in time or location historically, some of them were never used by anyone. But people have different ideas of what makes a character 'cool,' and reality doesn't factor high in the decision making process.
But everyone also gets upset when their idea of cool isn't as strong mechanically as other options. They want them all to be 'balanced.' So we end up characters swinging dual longswords to attack, and loading crossbows with their teeth. And what was historically only very effectively in a unit of soldiers all armed the same, is forced to be just as effective used solo. Even when it doesn't make sense.
I personally can't stand some of the current options from a historical perspective. But when playing a game, I think cool should win out over accuracy. And some semblance of balance is necessary or everyone complains.
So what is the answer?
One option would be to create settings where characters only fight with real world analogies to their location and time period. If everyone is playing in Ancient Greece, then that's the only fighting styles, weapons, and armor available. Balance doesn't matter. Because the best tool for the job is going to be dependant on the particular job. And characters will arm up differently depending on the fight ahead of them. This would be fun for a lot of people, but it's not the broad fantasy DnD offers.
Another option would be to stop worrying about historical accuracy at all. Make every cool option equally viable. It's all about balance. Explain it away with 'magic' if anyone asks. That's what DnD currently is.
Another option is to forget balance. All time periods and fighting styles are available. But some options are just going to suck against others. Learn to just accept it. You shouldn't have brought your cool throwing daggers style to the heavy calvary battle. DnD currently is not this.
Or lastly, you can try to make everything work a little bit. It's mostly balanced, and it's mostly accurate, and most of the options are there. No one is 100% happy, but maybe it's good enough. That's what a lot of suggestions like these attempt to do. The only thing people argue about depends on which things they find more important - realism, options, or balance.
Requiring a Bonus Action to "activate" a shield is an interesting idea, though it would mostly add an additional tax to shield users and shields are already kind of bad for martial characters.
This is almost already supported in the rules, a shield can be used as an improvised weapon for 1d4+STR damage.
The Pavise I would argue isn't really a shield, it is a piece of equipment that could be added to the game completely separate from shields.
Pavise
Two-Handed Item
You can use an action to make an Athletics check (DC 10) to thrust the Pavise into the ground causing it to occupy a 5ft cube. It provides 3/4 cover against ranged attacks that pass through its space.
Oh, and there is a fifth kind of shield, but I never got a chance to work with one so this is more theoretical than practical. Dueling shields are in many ways regular shields with a variety of spikes, hooks, and whatnot all over them. I am aware of three forms: the simplest of which is really a small shield or heavy buckler with a spike in the center. A good example of this is the Scottish targe, but I'm aware of it showing up all over the place, like India, Mongolia, etc.
Then there's the Italian lantern shield which also has a lantern built into it for night-time duels, or may have a gauntlet built into it so you can hold a lantern at the same time as equipping the shield.
And the weirdest one, the Germanic long shield, a large rectangular shield with a long single grip for one- and two-handed use, and usually has spikes and large hooks at either end. This was for trials by combat, or 'judicial duels' which often used unwieldy weapons or weird terrain in order to make the duel more difficult.
I really, really wanted to try a long shield while I was doing this kind of thing, but like a lot of things (falx, yumi, etc.) the opportunity never came up at the time, and my arthritis is now too bad to actually spar.
Sorry if I am a bit late to the party, but I'ma share my thoughts anyways. Not only do a think that weapons and shields are kinda boring, but I think the idea that shields can help solve the problem of fewer hits per an attack roll at low levels and more hits at higher levels. Because to hit bonuses become really high, and armor class doesn't fully scale with it. So here is how I think shields can help solve that problem, while also expanding the amount of types of shield options people can use to allow for more customization options and to realistically reflect the variety of roles shields can be used for:
Small Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with proficiency in light armor): AC boost equal to 1 + 1/3 of proficiency bonus rounded down while wielding
Regular Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with proficiency in light armor): AC boost equal to 1 + 1/2 proficiency bonus rounded down while wielding
Big Shield (this can be wielded in one hand by people with a strength score of 17 or higher and proficiency in heavy armor): AC boost equal to your proficiency bonus while wielding
Unfortunately, I cannot claim credit for the idea of using your proficiency bonus for a shield, nor can I claim credit for using it to solve some of the problems I mentioned earlier. These designs were inspired by some ideas that ThorukDuckSlayer and others shared over on this thread. These designs could be modified and these are just placeholder names, but I am eager to see what people think about them all the same.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.This isn't a problem actually, it is IMO very good game design because those high CR monsters are meant to be fought as one-vs-many boss encounters. In those instances we as game designers want the enemy to feel threatening over a relatively few rounds of combat, so it should be dealing 50-75% of a PCs total HP each round on average. Now consider the variability that happens depending on the chance a monster has to hit: Assuming the monster makes 3 attacks per round, then at a 50% chance to hit and has expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP, then there is a 12% chance it takes a PC from max HP to 0 in a single round, whereas a monster with a 90% chance to hit and expected DPR of 50% of a PCs total HP cannot do that. These numbers only become more extreme if you consider that at high levels martials (often) have higher AC and higher hit points than casters thus making it so that a monster with expected DPR of 50% of a martial's HP is almost guaranteed to drop a caster in one round.
To be more mathy:
A monster with 90% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of 1.1 times their average damage, whereas a monster with 50% chance to hit, will deal a maximum damage of double their average damage, and a monster with 25% chance to hit will deal a maximum damage of 4-times their average damage. [Always excluding critical hits here].
Strategies to reduce the variability of the damage dealt by a monster each round (i.e. the difference in damage for a monster getting lucky vs getting unlucky) without reducing its average DPR are: increasing the attacks per round (i.e. legendary actions, multiattack), and increasing its chance to hit, using saving throws for 1/2 damage rather than attack rolls. Generally you will in 5e that "boss" monsters generally use all three of these strategies - so that they can be balanced to feel deadly to the PCs without having a high chance of TPKing the party.
First of all, you seem to be saying that boss monsters have to be scary "over a relatively few rounds of combat," but they could also be scary by just being alive in combat over more rounds. The one benefit that this system gives is making the monster more scary because it is more likely to deal damage. But there are numerous other ways to make monsters scary, and by having basically every attack hit, this system makes combat boring and predictable. So, this element of "very good game design" serves more to make combats with boss monsters dull and repetitive much more than it serves to make the monsters scary.
Not only that, but as I said, there are numerous other ways to make boss monsters feel scary if you are deadset on making them scary in a relatively few rounds of combat. For example, use more saving throw effects, have the monster make more attacks without as big a bonus and damage, or just boost up the damage to make each attack scary. In my opinion at least, this is a very bad system and it needs to be fixed.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Please, let's not ask to complicate the game with unnecessary mechanics. The +2 to AC is enough.
You have to understand that the mechanics in a game are an abstraction, they do not necessarily have to faithfully reflect reality. They just have to work in the game they are implemented.
The advantage of 5e compared to previous editions is that its mechanics are simple and relatively easy to understand. If we start to complicate the game with little stuff, it will happen like in 3.5 (or its heirs like pathfinder). And that's fine, but that's what these games are for. 5e, luckily, and quite successfully, seeks another gaming experience.
Bucklers should be +1 AC while leaving your hand open.
Shield should remain the same.
Tower shield should be +3 AC with a 16-18 STR requirement.
Shield Master feat can add extra features like say being able to use it as a weapon with a different die for each shield or add an extra +1 AC.
No block mechanic required. Don't need to make it more complicated than necessary.
High CR monsters do usually have saving throw effects as I noted, saving throws for 1/2 damage are the most effective to moderate expected damage but they also make AC stacking utterly irrelevant. Boss monsters already make ~6 attacks per round, this would have to double if their accuracy is halved which becomes a lot of rolling and a lot of time (people already complain about 16 Conjured animals making an attack each round taking too long). Just boosting damage of attacks makes the game more swingy (i.e. if the enemies get a little bit lucky and e.g. roll two critical hits in the first round then it will lead to a TPK) so makes it harder for DMs to balance encounters so they feel dangerous but don't actually have a very high chance of a TPK - If Deadly encounters really had a 20% chance of TPK then most campaigns would end in a TPK before level 6-7.