Dont know about others, but I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it. So I thought a shield might be more favored if it served a better purpose. Dont get me wrong, Shield Master feat is nice, but I dont think its enough. Would love some feedback on it, hoping WoTC folks like it.
Parry: blocking a physical attack with a shield by doing a contested attack roll, that easy. Shield value and any magical bonuses add to the roll to parry. This can be used against ranged physical attacks long as the attack is not a surprise.
This is something that should be available to Fighters that take Protector fighting style and a specific Paladins subclass only,
When using shield that a character is proficient in, you may attempt to block an incoming physical attack against you as a reaction.
Shield Master feat, will let a character attempt to parry an attack as a free action once per turn against your self or an adjacent target with in 5 feet of you. This means, a reaction can still be used that round to attempt a parry.
Maybe a higher version of Shield Mastery that can be used to parry single target spells against the shield bearer.
This could also be a subclass for a Fighter, I guess.
I believe I mentioned that feat in my post. Maybe you havent read it, it gives a save to take half damage to no damage vs dex based saves, which are AoE.
Something to consider: every time somebody has to roll is a time the game is paused to see the result. If you can expect a character to be making an extra attack roll every round, that's going to noticably slow things down, especially since they won't necessarily be prepared for each roll like they would be on their own turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, I get it, extra attack could slow things down, I considered that. I think it would be no different than a reaction, also I think players wont mind as much if it saves their bacon.
Shields are great as is. People don’t use them in 5e often because they have other things they need to be holding. When I do Artificers they always have a shield, ut I haven’t seen enough others play them to know how most build them. Barbarians typically want two handed weapons and GWM. They have plenty of HP and resistance to not need a shield. Some Valor Bards want a free hand for casting, but I’ve seen Valor bards with shields. Some Clerics want that free hand for casting, but I’ve seen clerics with shields. I’ve never seen a Druid with a shield, but that might just be my friends. I’ve seen plenty of Fighters with shields. I’ve seen Paladins with shields. Most Rangers I’ve seen are archers so shields can’t be used. So of all the classes who can use shields the only class that I’ve seen more or less avoid shields completely is Druids, but my sample size is small. +2 to AC is huge and once you start getting magical armor shields have saved so many players.
I’ve never seen a Druid with a shield, but that might just be my friends.
Pretty much all my druids take a shield. Not like most druids need to be holding a weapon in their main hand unless they're going Shillelagh. It is basically a free +2 AC with no drawbacks unless I want to get fancy with a scimitar or something.
That said, I've found a lot of druid players just don't like the shield on their druid for aesthetic reasons, which I get. It's why I try to flavor my druid shield as something naturey. My current guy runs around with a large turtle shell as a shield.
Dont know about others, but I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it. So I thought a shield might be more favored if it served a better purpose. Dont get me wrong, Shield Master feat is nice, but I dont think its enough. Would love some feedback on it, hoping WoTC folks like it.
Parry: blocking a physical attack with a shield by doing a contested attack roll, that easy. Shield value and any magical bonuses add to the roll to parry. This can be used against ranged physical attacks long as the attack is not a surprise.
This is something that should be available to Fighters that take Protector fighting style and a specific Paladins subclass only,
When using shield that a character is proficient in, you may attempt to block an incoming physical attack against you as a reaction.
Shield Master feat, will let a character attempt to parry an attack as a free action once per turn against your self or an adjacent target with in 5 feet of you. This means, a reaction can still be used that round to attempt a parry.
Maybe a higher version of Shield Mastery that can be used to parry single target spells against the shield bearer.
This could also be a subclass for a Fighter, I guess.
This could also be used for martial weapons
Thoughts, ideas?
Doesn't feel like any of this is fixing anything.
First off shields already add AC, which is pretty good against most single target attack spells, since spells rarely get the enchantment bonuses that say a +1/+2/+3 weapon gets. The issue with Protection and Shield Master is that what they add doesn't generally improve either action economy or damage per round. It's rarely the case in 5E that being defensive is more worthwhile than just outputting more damage, there are cases of course but more often then not, battles are best won by winning them quickly rather than attempting to be tanky or heal through them. The Defence fighting style is just straight up a +1 AC bonus at no action economy cost, compared to protection which uses a reaction. Anything that gives free actions has the capacity on the other hand to be extremely overpowered. Overall protection needs a complete re-work.
For Shield Master, it makes you better on single target Dexterity saves and take less damage from dexterity saving throw effects, it's okay but also kinda meh. AoE Dex save spells aren't the rarest but it's also not a majority of spells either. So you save better against Fireball, it does nothing against a Sickening Radiance or a Dominate Person. So it's a situational bonus against certain spells only, the shield bash as a bonus action is also kind of meh because it's a bonus action, where somebody with two weapons makes two attacks, you're using a shield to boost AC in the first place so sacrificed DPR for the shield, the Shield Bash should be a push back + Damage (1d4+strength), but limited too Proficiency Bonus times per day, would make it more useful, as an additional damage source. Alternatively the Shield Bash should stun instead of damage but that feels, a bit RNG and potentially both underpowered and overpowered, like stunning strike, so I think damage is the better option.
I believe I mentioned that feat in my post. Maybe you havent read it, it gives a save to take half damage to no damage vs dex based saves, which are AoE.
Singles target saves are rolls to hit
Sorry but that's contradictory, single target saves are saves - it's stuff like Hold Person or Dissonant Whispers or Disintegrate. Spell attack rolls are rolls to hit and are rare beyond tier 1.
Dont know about others, but I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it. So I thought a shield might be more favored if it served a better purpose. Dont get me wrong, Shield Master feat is nice, but I dont think its enough. Would love some feedback on it, hoping WoTC folks like it.
Parry: blocking a physical attack with a shield by doing a contested attack roll, that easy. Shield value and any magical bonuses add to the roll to parry. This can be used against ranged physical attacks long as the attack is not a surprise.
This is something that should be available to Fighters that take Protector fighting style and a specific Paladins subclass only,
When using shield that a character is proficient in, you may attempt to block an incoming physical attack against you as a reaction.
Shield Master feat, will let a character attempt to parry an attack as a free action once per turn against your self or an adjacent target with in 5 feet of you. This means, a reaction can still be used that round to attempt a parry.
Maybe a higher version of Shield Mastery that can be used to parry single target spells against the shield bearer.
This could also be a subclass for a Fighter, I guess.
This could also be used for martial weapons
Thoughts, ideas?
Doesn't feel like any of this is fixing anything.
First off shields already add AC, which is pretty good against most single target attack spells, since spells rarely get the enchantment bonuses that say a +1/+2/+3 weapon gets. The issue with Protection and Shield Master is that what they add doesn't generally improve either action economy or damage per round. It's rarely the case in 5E that being defensive is more worthwhile than just outputting more damage, there are cases of course but more often then not, battles are best won by winning them quickly rather than attempting to be tanky or heal through them. The Defence fighting style is just straight up a +1 AC bonus at no action economy cost, compared to protection which uses a reaction. Anything that gives free actions has the capacity on the other hand to be extremely overpowered. Overall protection needs a complete re-work.
I disagree, Protection mathematically is better than the Defense fighting style if there is a second melee character in your party. Defense is +1 AC constantly, but Protection is equivalent to a +5 AC (Disadvantage) each time it is used. In general, one character is not going to be targeted by more than 5 attacks per round, so +5 AC 1/round is better than +1 AC for the whole round. So as long as you are using Protection every round, it is more powerful than Defense. The only problem with Protection is that requirement for it to be a creature next to you, if it were to be changed to : "When you or a creature within 5ft of you is targeted by an attack, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on that attack" then Protection would reliably be a better option than Defense for shield users.
Dont know about others, but I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it. So I thought a shield might be more favored if it served a better purpose. Dont get me wrong, Shield Master feat is nice, but I dont think its enough. Would love some feedback on it, hoping WoTC folks like it.
Parry: blocking a physical attack with a shield by doing a contested attack roll, that easy. Shield value and any magical bonuses add to the roll to parry. This can be used against ranged physical attacks long as the attack is not a surprise.
This is something that should be available to Fighters that take Protector fighting style and a specific Paladins subclass only,
When using shield that a character is proficient in, you may attempt to block an incoming physical attack against you as a reaction.
Shield Master feat, will let a character attempt to parry an attack as a free action once per turn against your self or an adjacent target with in 5 feet of you. This means, a reaction can still be used that round to attempt a parry.
Maybe a higher version of Shield Mastery that can be used to parry single target spells against the shield bearer.
This could also be a subclass for a Fighter, I guess.
This could also be used for martial weapons
Thoughts, ideas?
Doesn't feel like any of this is fixing anything.
First off shields already add AC, which is pretty good against most single target attack spells, since spells rarely get the enchantment bonuses that say a +1/+2/+3 weapon gets. The issue with Protection and Shield Master is that what they add doesn't generally improve either action economy or damage per round. It's rarely the case in 5E that being defensive is more worthwhile than just outputting more damage, there are cases of course but more often then not, battles are best won by winning them quickly rather than attempting to be tanky or heal through them. The Defence fighting style is just straight up a +1 AC bonus at no action economy cost, compared to protection which uses a reaction. Anything that gives free actions has the capacity on the other hand to be extremely overpowered. Overall protection needs a complete re-work.
I disagree, Protection mathematically is better than the Defense fighting style if there is a second melee character in your party. Defense is +1 AC constantly, but Protection is equivalent to a +5 AC (Disadvantage) each time it is used. In general, one character is not going to be targeted by more than 5 attacks per round, so +5 AC 1/round is better than +1 AC for the whole round. So as long as you are using Protection every round, it is more powerful than Defense. The only problem with Protection is that requirement for it to be a creature next to you, if it were to be changed to : "When you or a creature within 5ft of you is targeted by an attack, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on that attack" then Protection would reliably be a better option than Defense for shield users.
This assumes three things, firstly, that you can use protection. Protection can only be used if a) you're in 5 foot of the ally and b) you can see the attacker, which is not always the case and c) obviously that you have a shield. Defence works against all attack rolls against you, your only caveat is wearing armour.
But even assuming all three things here are true, Protection is still worse, because it consumes part of the action economy, that being the reaction. If you are in a situation where you could grant protection or you could make an opportunity attack, the latter is more often the better choice. This is where protection and defence simply aren't equal, because defence is passive where protection is a reaction. If you ignore all of these factors then you can argue that Protection is better and that still not be true, since Protection is applying disadvantage, but in the cases that the creatures already have disadvantage then it does nothing, in the case the creatures have advantage, it does less than turning a normal attack into disadvantage. Overall Protection is a weak fighting style, that specifically requires that the character is speccing to be an off-tank, or sits behind the tank with a shield, while also always being exactly 5ft away from the main tank, situationally. you often get cases where the best off tank position can be 10 ft or more away from the main tank, to cover a larger area or to hold a secondary smaller group of mobs.
So I firmly disagree, Protection, is junk. It's best use is when you're next to a more vulnerable spell caster, but then you're a class with a shield hanging on backlines... which is just even more questionable. If you have a shield and on the backlines, you're probably either a cleric or a druid, which don't even get fighting styles.
It fails to recognize the system design for AC, and increase combat complexity while not solving any actual problem.
I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it.
That isn't a problem. That's an approach or a philosophy. It would work great for your table, where it is fairly obvious you are interested in seeing more people adopt shields, but that is a narrow band idea, and one that is at odds with the traditional origins of, inspirations of, and nature of D&D as a whole.
In terms of game mechanics, the concept of a "shield parry" is already built into the core concept of AC itself, and then further refined by the use of a Feat to demonstrate exceptional capability.
The concept of:
blocking a physical attack with a shield
is already included in AC -- that's why the shield gives a bonus. That bonus works even with surprise attacks and against ranged attacks. So, fundamentally, the deault application addresses the needs you describe.
Which suggests that perhaps the idea of AC (and combat in general) isn't fully understood as two very abstract concepts, or perhaps a desire for a less abstract system (which would require completely re-doing HP systems and dependent systems as well as armor systems and such), which is both fairly common and still inherently oppositional to the way D&D has always done combat.
Which is not to say that it should always be that way -- but it does mean that the soonest one could see a major change like that would be the next full iteration of the game (6e, specifically), which is likely at the bare minimum five years out, and more likely a decade.
You hope to increase adoption of the Shield among players by making shields more interesting and useful. That's better handled through a bit of lore, a justification in color, so to speak. A traditional wall shield was a heavy, brutal thing, but it still only grants a +3 in most homebrew systems, because the real mechanic for a shield lies in cover (rules that most people ignore since they could use a bit of sharpening for the few folks who want a more granular, less abstract system than the vast majority who hate that kind of thing).
The game is an individualist system -- so the notion of turtles and other shield dependent formations are pretty much useless, and there's a lot that folks forget is already incorporated into the basic idea of what combat is in D&D. It is not a single trading of blows, it is a chance of blows getting through for a single decent strike within a six second window -- of more if the character has additional attacks, which are really just additional chances that an attack will pierce the skill of the opponent.
The function of a shield is to reduce that chance.
For a slightly different perspective, in my game, I do not have "critical hits" that cause double damage. What we have is critical hits that reduce the effectiveness of armor. Flat out -- a critical hit can reduce the AC of your opponent. Which means that shield is broken. That would negate all the benefits of that particular proposal.
Now, do you think that most people are going to adopt the idea that critical hits reduce AC, or do you think they are going to just keep using the double damage? Most people, again. I can say with certainty that most people ae not going to do so.
And however good an idea I think it is, the Devs aren't going to go with anything that doesn't appeal to most people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There are lots of existing mechanics that allow you to do a Parry action. Battlemaster has a damage reduction verson. Defensive Duelist (RAW doesn't work with a shield, but I would accept that as a change: finesse weapons OR a shield).
For me, the main gap with shields in 5e is an official, non-improvised, shield bash mechanic. I could even see that being a weapon mastery: Use one of your Weapon Mastery picks to allow you to use your Shield as a light hammer (1d4 damage, light, throwable, nick-able).
The game already has a Parry mechanic used by monsters in which they use a reaction to increase their AC against a single melee attack by an amount equal to their PB, but they must be wielding a melee weapon. That’s what “parrying” is, it’s using a melee weapon to deflect a melee attack. It has nothing whatsoever to do with shields, or saving throws.
Soooo, I get the impression no one likes this idea? Heh
someone likes it.
You, at the least, and odds are very good you are not alone in it.
Is it an overwhelming majority of folks? No.
But that doesn't matter except insofar as trying to make it an "official rule" -- and that isn't a good basis for deciding if you should use an idea for yourself or your games.
If you like the idea, put it into practice at your table, in your games. That's the important thing, anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Soooo, I get the impression no one likes this idea? Heh
I like the idea of addressing a gap in the shield rules. I just differ from you in what needs to be fixed and how to fix it. 1- Extend "Defensive Duelist" to include Shields. That's a direct "shield parry". 2- Allow using a Weapon Mastery pick to let you use a Shield as a Light Hammer.
Another option (which dovetails on giving Shields "weapon mastery") is a "Parry" option for Weapon Mastery, grants an AC bonus against the last target you attacked, if it was with a weapon/shield you've obtained that Mastery with, and are using that Mastery.
I think my issues could be handled with these weapon masteries (with "Bash" being the basic weapon mastery for a Shield):
Bash Prerequisites: Shield Your shield counts as a Club (1d4 bludgeon damage, Light).It is compatible with the following masteries:Nick, Parry, Push, Slow, Vex.
Parry Prerequisites: Unarmed Strike, Melee Weapon, or Shield, Not a flexible weapon (flail, whip) nor a Mounted Lance. If this weapon is in hand when any creature makes a melee attack roll against you, you may use your Reaction against that attack.You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Proficiency Bonus against all attacks from that attacker until the start of your next turn.
Dont know about others, but I feel the shield is lackluster to the point where not many want to focus on it. So I thought a shield might be more favored if it served a better purpose. Dont get me wrong, Shield Master feat is nice, but I dont think its enough. Would love some feedback on it, hoping WoTC folks like it.
Parry: blocking a physical attack with a shield by doing a contested attack roll, that easy. Shield value and any magical bonuses add to the roll to parry. This can be used against ranged physical attacks long as the attack is not a surprise.
This is something that should be available to Fighters that take Protector fighting style and a specific Paladins subclass only,
When using shield that a character is proficient in, you may attempt to block an incoming physical attack against you as a reaction.
Shield Master feat, will let a character attempt to parry an attack as a free action once per turn against your self or an adjacent target with in 5 feet of you. This means, a reaction can still be used that round to attempt a parry.
Maybe a higher version of Shield Mastery that can be used to parry single target spells against the shield bearer.
This could also be a subclass for a Fighter, I guess.
This could also be used for martial weapons
Thoughts, ideas?
Sorry but have you not read the Shield Master feat? It already gives the Parry vs magic.
I believe I mentioned that feat in my post. Maybe you havent read it, it gives a save to take half damage to no damage vs dex based saves, which are AoE.
Singles target saves are rolls to hit
Something to consider: every time somebody has to roll is a time the game is paused to see the result. If you can expect a character to be making an extra attack roll every round, that's going to noticably slow things down, especially since they won't necessarily be prepared for each roll like they would be on their own turn.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yeah, I get it, extra attack could slow things down, I considered that. I think it would be no different than a reaction, also I think players wont mind as much if it saves their bacon.
Shields are great as is. People don’t use them in 5e often because they have other things they need to be holding. When I do Artificers they always have a shield, ut I haven’t seen enough others play them to know how most build them. Barbarians typically want two handed weapons and GWM. They have plenty of HP and resistance to not need a shield. Some Valor Bards want a free hand for casting, but I’ve seen Valor bards with shields. Some Clerics want that free hand for casting, but I’ve seen clerics with shields. I’ve never seen a Druid with a shield, but that might just be my friends. I’ve seen plenty of Fighters with shields. I’ve seen Paladins with shields. Most Rangers I’ve seen are archers so shields can’t be used. So of all the classes who can use shields the only class that I’ve seen more or less avoid shields completely is Druids, but my sample size is small. +2 to AC is huge and once you start getting magical armor shields have saved so many players.
Pretty much all my druids take a shield. Not like most druids need to be holding a weapon in their main hand unless they're going Shillelagh. It is basically a free +2 AC with no drawbacks unless I want to get fancy with a scimitar or something.
That said, I've found a lot of druid players just don't like the shield on their druid for aesthetic reasons, which I get. It's why I try to flavor my druid shield as something naturey. My current guy runs around with a large turtle shell as a shield.
Doesn't feel like any of this is fixing anything.
First off shields already add AC, which is pretty good against most single target attack spells, since spells rarely get the enchantment bonuses that say a +1/+2/+3 weapon gets. The issue with Protection and Shield Master is that what they add doesn't generally improve either action economy or damage per round. It's rarely the case in 5E that being defensive is more worthwhile than just outputting more damage, there are cases of course but more often then not, battles are best won by winning them quickly rather than attempting to be tanky or heal through them. The Defence fighting style is just straight up a +1 AC bonus at no action economy cost, compared to protection which uses a reaction. Anything that gives free actions has the capacity on the other hand to be extremely overpowered. Overall protection needs a complete re-work.
For Shield Master, it makes you better on single target Dexterity saves and take less damage from dexterity saving throw effects, it's okay but also kinda meh. AoE Dex save spells aren't the rarest but it's also not a majority of spells either. So you save better against Fireball, it does nothing against a Sickening Radiance or a Dominate Person. So it's a situational bonus against certain spells only, the shield bash as a bonus action is also kind of meh because it's a bonus action, where somebody with two weapons makes two attacks, you're using a shield to boost AC in the first place so sacrificed DPR for the shield, the Shield Bash should be a push back + Damage (1d4+strength), but limited too Proficiency Bonus times per day, would make it more useful, as an additional damage source. Alternatively the Shield Bash should stun instead of damage but that feels, a bit RNG and potentially both underpowered and overpowered, like stunning strike, so I think damage is the better option.
Sorry but that's contradictory, single target saves are saves - it's stuff like Hold Person or Dissonant Whispers or Disintegrate. Spell attack rolls are rolls to hit and are rare beyond tier 1.
I disagree, Protection mathematically is better than the Defense fighting style if there is a second melee character in your party. Defense is +1 AC constantly, but Protection is equivalent to a +5 AC (Disadvantage) each time it is used. In general, one character is not going to be targeted by more than 5 attacks per round, so +5 AC 1/round is better than +1 AC for the whole round. So as long as you are using Protection every round, it is more powerful than Defense. The only problem with Protection is that requirement for it to be a creature next to you, if it were to be changed to : "When you or a creature within 5ft of you is targeted by an attack, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on that attack" then Protection would reliably be a better option than Defense for shield users.
This assumes three things, firstly, that you can use protection. Protection can only be used if a) you're in 5 foot of the ally and b) you can see the attacker, which is not always the case and c) obviously that you have a shield. Defence works against all attack rolls against you, your only caveat is wearing armour.
But even assuming all three things here are true, Protection is still worse, because it consumes part of the action economy, that being the reaction. If you are in a situation where you could grant protection or you could make an opportunity attack, the latter is more often the better choice. This is where protection and defence simply aren't equal, because defence is passive where protection is a reaction. If you ignore all of these factors then you can argue that Protection is better and that still not be true, since Protection is applying disadvantage, but in the cases that the creatures already have disadvantage then it does nothing, in the case the creatures have advantage, it does less than turning a normal attack into disadvantage. Overall Protection is a weak fighting style, that specifically requires that the character is speccing to be an off-tank, or sits behind the tank with a shield, while also always being exactly 5ft away from the main tank, situationally. you often get cases where the best off tank position can be 10 ft or more away from the main tank, to cover a larger area or to hold a secondary smaller group of mobs.
So I firmly disagree, Protection, is junk. It's best use is when you're next to a more vulnerable spell caster, but then you're a class with a shield hanging on backlines... which is just even more questionable. If you have a shield and on the backlines, you're probably either a cleric or a druid, which don't even get fighting styles.
Single target attack spells, sorry I thought it was implied
It fails to recognize the system design for AC, and increase combat complexity while not solving any actual problem.
That isn't a problem. That's an approach or a philosophy. It would work great for your table, where it is fairly obvious you are interested in seeing more people adopt shields, but that is a narrow band idea, and one that is at odds with the traditional origins of, inspirations of, and nature of D&D as a whole.
In terms of game mechanics, the concept of a "shield parry" is already built into the core concept of AC itself, and then further refined by the use of a Feat to demonstrate exceptional capability.
The concept of:
is already included in AC -- that's why the shield gives a bonus. That bonus works even with surprise attacks and against ranged attacks. So, fundamentally, the deault application addresses the needs you describe.
Which suggests that perhaps the idea of AC (and combat in general) isn't fully understood as two very abstract concepts, or perhaps a desire for a less abstract system (which would require completely re-doing HP systems and dependent systems as well as armor systems and such), which is both fairly common and still inherently oppositional to the way D&D has always done combat.
Which is not to say that it should always be that way -- but it does mean that the soonest one could see a major change like that would be the next full iteration of the game (6e, specifically), which is likely at the bare minimum five years out, and more likely a decade.
You hope to increase adoption of the Shield among players by making shields more interesting and useful. That's better handled through a bit of lore, a justification in color, so to speak. A traditional wall shield was a heavy, brutal thing, but it still only grants a +3 in most homebrew systems, because the real mechanic for a shield lies in cover (rules that most people ignore since they could use a bit of sharpening for the few folks who want a more granular, less abstract system than the vast majority who hate that kind of thing).
The game is an individualist system -- so the notion of turtles and other shield dependent formations are pretty much useless, and there's a lot that folks forget is already incorporated into the basic idea of what combat is in D&D. It is not a single trading of blows, it is a chance of blows getting through for a single decent strike within a six second window -- of more if the character has additional attacks, which are really just additional chances that an attack will pierce the skill of the opponent.
The function of a shield is to reduce that chance.
For a slightly different perspective, in my game, I do not have "critical hits" that cause double damage. What we have is critical hits that reduce the effectiveness of armor. Flat out -- a critical hit can reduce the AC of your opponent. Which means that shield is broken. That would negate all the benefits of that particular proposal.
Now, do you think that most people are going to adopt the idea that critical hits reduce AC, or do you think they are going to just keep using the double damage? Most people, again. I can say with certainty that most people ae not going to do so.
And however good an idea I think it is, the Devs aren't going to go with anything that doesn't appeal to most people.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There are lots of existing mechanics that allow you to do a Parry action. Battlemaster has a damage reduction verson. Defensive Duelist (RAW doesn't work with a shield, but I would accept that as a change: finesse weapons OR a shield).
For me, the main gap with shields in 5e is an official, non-improvised, shield bash mechanic. I could even see that being a weapon mastery: Use one of your Weapon Mastery picks to allow you to use your Shield as a light hammer (1d4 damage, light, throwable, nick-able).
The game already has a Parry mechanic used by monsters in which they use a reaction to increase their AC against a single melee attack by an amount equal to their PB, but they must be wielding a melee weapon. That’s what “parrying” is, it’s using a melee weapon to deflect a melee attack. It has nothing whatsoever to do with shields, or saving throws.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Soooo, I get the impression no one likes this idea? Heh
someone likes it.
You, at the least, and odds are very good you are not alone in it.
Is it an overwhelming majority of folks? No.
But that doesn't matter except insofar as trying to make it an "official rule" -- and that isn't a good basis for deciding if you should use an idea for yourself or your games.
If you like the idea, put it into practice at your table, in your games. That's the important thing, anyway.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I like the idea of addressing a gap in the shield rules. I just differ from you in what needs to be fixed and how to fix it.
1- Extend "Defensive Duelist" to include Shields. That's a direct "shield parry".
2- Allow using a Weapon Mastery pick to let you use a Shield as a Light Hammer.
Another option (which dovetails on giving Shields "weapon mastery") is a "Parry" option for Weapon Mastery, grants an AC bonus against the last target you attacked, if it was with a weapon/shield you've obtained that Mastery with, and are using that Mastery.
I think my issues could be handled with these weapon masteries (with "Bash" being the basic weapon mastery for a Shield):
Bash
Prerequisites: Shield
Your shield counts as a Club (1d4 bludgeon damage, Light). It is compatible with the following masteries: Nick, Parry, Push, Slow, Vex.
Parry
Prerequisites: Unarmed Strike, Melee Weapon, or Shield, Not a flexible weapon (flail, whip) nor a Mounted Lance.
If this weapon is in hand when any creature makes a melee attack roll against you, you may use your Reaction against that attack. You gain a bonus to your AC equal to your Proficiency Bonus against all attacks from that attacker until the start of your next turn.