Good, I'm glad those will work for you when you DM (though FYI any character can make an Unarmed Strike regardless of what is in their hand e.g. as a flying kick, a head butt to the face, an elbow strike or a knee to the groin, so if you allow Parry as long as character to make an unarmed strike you are effectively just saying everyone can use Parry at all times). I definitely don't think they should be added to the base game because you can't throw a shield as effectively as a hammer, nor can you break their bones, or crush their skull. Shield bash is appropriately a Shove action.
I edited it to be club and not light hammer (and I did that before you posted your comment). While there is some fiction schtick for throwing a shield, which I was initially thinking should be inclueded, it's enough of a niche to be a special and not a usual.
As for parrying with an unarmed strike: who gets unarmed strike weapon masteries? Right now, no one. So it's not something "everyone can do" in the current state of OneD&D, it's something _no_one_ can do. It should be something Monks can obtain (unarmed strike weapon masteries), but right now, it doesn't even apply to them. And it would still require burning a weapon mastery. So even if "everyone" can hypothetically do it, they have to pick it as one of their weapon masteries (so if you're not in a particular class, it means taking an entire feat for it, which puts it into the same cost category as Defensive Duelist -- for most characters, it's probably a better deal to carry a dagger and take Defensive Duelist -- it'll do more damage than their unarmed strikes if they also use it for an attack).
And if it's not the base mastery for Unarmed Strikes, that means you'd have to take TWO weapon masteries to get it.
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.
As a non-martial player, I absolutely mind when the fighter takes all night because he's trying to defend on every attack that is made at him.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
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.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
You just make shield bashes need a fighting style or feat, it's pretty easy. Personally I'd go for Fighting style since then it limits it mostly to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. You're still giving up great weapons to take a 1d8 weapon, or 1d6 if you limit it like dual wielding weapons.
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.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
The Romans weren't killing people with their shields though (i.e. dealing damage) they used them to break enemy lines, and knock enemies prone and then kill with the gladius (shortsword). Which is why Shoving with a shield definitely needs to be in the game. A shield has far too much surface area which spreads out the force and reduces the impact of strikes with it, to deal mortal wounds. Sure there are a handful of instances of blades/spikes attached to shields so that it can be used as a weapon -> the blade/spike reduces the area of contact on a blow thus increasing impact and allowing mortal blows, however a shield with a spike is far more unwieldy than a weapon making it much more difficult to hit your target effectively, so it wasn't all that useful - though in a "press" where two units of melee troops charge into each other such that the force of men behind the front line presses the front line into the opposing front line aim is kind of irrelevant.
Though this is all kind of irrelevant to D&D because it is army vs army tactics which are very different than individual vs individual tactics which is what D&D uses.
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.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
gotta bring back the shield categories. something like buckler, standard, and tower shield. then you add weapon (shield) masteries.
buckler - light, straps to arm, +1 AC to duelist fighting style or +2 to monk deflect missiles (no catch)
kite - when you dodge it provides half cover against all attacks that pass through the 5ft square directly before you.
heater shield - heavy, +1 to successful push or bash damage.
tower - heavy, provides 3/4 cover against all attacks that pass through the 5ft square directly before you and the two 5ft squares on either side of that. when you dodge, this increases to full cover through those squares. players immediately behind you benefit from this too. when tower shield is equipped, fighter goes up one level of encumbrance: none > some (-10ft move) > heavily (-20ft move).
bash - attack an adjacent foe as if using a light hammer. shield with the "heavy" property used this way provoke attacks of opportunity from nearby foes other than the one struck (do not add shield AC for this)
nothing new for parry or shield parry. that's just something you can narrate to make enemy misses sound exciting. parry is already part of AC.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons.
The Romans weren't killing people with their shields though (i.e. dealing damage)
Wearing someone down in endurance, luck, bruises, etc. is also "dealing damage" in the hit point system. Push/Shove only applies if you're actually _moving_ them across the field/grid. If you're pressing them, and they're pressing back, you're both exerting effort (reducing endurance, and thus hit point damage), but neither of you is significantly moving on the field (so the D&D mechanics of push/shove don't apply to that situation).
And that doesn't account for the opportunity of using the edge of your shield as a bludgeoning surface, or a shield spike or bulge for a shield-face strike. That absolutely could deal actual damage (not just endurance/luck/etc. type damage).
So, all around, yes, shields can "deal damage", whether literally or merely in the D&D sense (where damage is also endurance/luck/etc.).
Sure they can "deal damage" but they are no better at doing so than a bar stool. Thus it is appropriate for using a shield as a weapon to be an "improvised attack" as already implemented in the rules. Personally I'd like improvised weapons to be better so building for them is viable - which is why I liked the Brawler subclass - but apparently not enough of the community agree.
I think if you're a practiced sword & board style fighter, it is likely something you are more proficient with than an improvised attack.
But even if you stick to "improvised attack", the weapon mastery I put forward is merely giving you Proficiency with that sub-type of improvised weapon. If you think that's too narrow, you could make it proficiency with all improvised weapons, but that becomes less thematic.
Sure they can "deal damage" but they are no better at doing so than a bar stool. Thus it is appropriate for using a shield as a weapon to be an "improvised attack" as already implemented in the rules. Personally I'd like improvised weapons to be better so building for them is viable - which is why I liked the Brawler subclass - but apparently not enough of the community agree.
honestly, I wish attacking without proficiency bonus (at low levels, at least) was more common and acceptable. the game showers us with weapon proficiency to the point that many think 'proficient' just means knowing which end you stick into the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
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.
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
The Romans weren't killing people with their shields though (i.e. dealing damage) they used them to break enemy lines, and knock enemies prone and then kill with the gladius (shortsword). Which is why Shoving with a shield definitely needs to be in the game. A shield has far too much surface area which spreads out the force and reduces the impact of strikes with it, to deal mortal wounds. Sure there are a handful of instances of blades/spikes attached to shields so that it can be used as a weapon -> the blade/spike reduces the area of contact on a blow thus increasing impact and allowing mortal blows, however a shield with a spike is far more unwieldy than a weapon making it much more difficult to hit your target effectively, so it wasn't all that useful - though in a "press" where two units of melee troops charge into each other such that the force of men behind the front line presses the front line into the opposing front line aim is kind of irrelevant.
Though this is all kind of irrelevant to D&D because it is army vs army tactics which are very different than individual vs individual tactics which is what D&D uses.
The iron boss on the shield could do a lot of damage, and you could absolutely break bones with the edge of the scutum. Smashing the edge of the scutum into an exposed ankle is not 'bashing them down' that's solid damage, though it's putting them on the ground for a gladius strike to finish. I tend to subscribe to the school of thought that hit points represent the stamina to hold up to an enemies attack. After all, a dagger and a 2 handed axe will both kill with one stroke., but stopping that axe strike that doesn't kill takes a lot more out of you than stopping a dagger strike that fails to kill.
Breaking a foot, ankle or shin with the edge of a scutum, or smashing the boss into someone's face is absolutely the kind of damage that will run a barbarian's day and is a long sight more than just pushing them back for passage-of-lines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good, I'm glad those will work for you when you DM (though FYI any character can make an Unarmed Strike regardless of what is in their hand e.g. as a flying kick, a head butt to the face, an elbow strike or a knee to the groin, so if you allow Parry as long as character to make an unarmed strike you are effectively just saying everyone can use Parry at all times). I definitely don't think they should be added to the base game because you can't throw a shield as effectively as a hammer, nor can you break their bones, or crush their skull. Shield bash is appropriately a Shove action.
I edited it to be club and not light hammer (and I did that before you posted your comment). While there is some fiction schtick for throwing a shield, which I was initially thinking should be inclueded, it's enough of a niche to be a special and not a usual.
As for parrying with an unarmed strike: who gets unarmed strike weapon masteries? Right now, no one. So it's not something "everyone can do" in the current state of OneD&D, it's something _no_one_ can do. It should be something Monks can obtain (unarmed strike weapon masteries), but right now, it doesn't even apply to them. And it would still require burning a weapon mastery. So even if "everyone" can hypothetically do it, they have to pick it as one of their weapon masteries (so if you're not in a particular class, it means taking an entire feat for it, which puts it into the same cost category as Defensive Duelist -- for most characters, it's probably a better deal to carry a dagger and take Defensive Duelist -- it'll do more damage than their unarmed strikes if they also use it for an attack).
And if it's not the base mastery for Unarmed Strikes, that means you'd have to take TWO weapon masteries to get it.
As a non-martial player, I absolutely mind when the fighter takes all night because he's trying to defend on every attack that is made at him.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The thing that frustrates me with the shield rules, is that shields absolutely were used as offensive weapons. The Romans come to mind. The problem is once of balance; how do you balance shields offensively so that they don't crap on dual wield even more? Even if you make them count as a D4 weapon, it makes the shield equal to a purpose designed weapon in the dagger. Perhaps I would change shield master to give the choice between pushing or rolling another attack to do unarmed strike damage.
Not sure what the answer is. With the new weapon mastery rules, shield master's kind of power creeped because you can do the push with the weapon itself now.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You just make shield bashes need a fighting style or feat, it's pretty easy. Personally I'd go for Fighting style since then it limits it mostly to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger. You're still giving up great weapons to take a 1d8 weapon, or 1d6 if you limit it like dual wielding weapons.
The Romans weren't killing people with their shields though (i.e. dealing damage) they used them to break enemy lines, and knock enemies prone and then kill with the gladius (shortsword). Which is why Shoving with a shield definitely needs to be in the game. A shield has far too much surface area which spreads out the force and reduces the impact of strikes with it, to deal mortal wounds. Sure there are a handful of instances of blades/spikes attached to shields so that it can be used as a weapon -> the blade/spike reduces the area of contact on a blow thus increasing impact and allowing mortal blows, however a shield with a spike is far more unwieldy than a weapon making it much more difficult to hit your target effectively, so it wasn't all that useful - though in a "press" where two units of melee troops charge into each other such that the force of men behind the front line presses the front line into the opposing front line aim is kind of irrelevant.
Though this is all kind of irrelevant to D&D because it is army vs army tactics which are very different than individual vs individual tactics which is what D&D uses.
gotta bring back the shield categories. something like buckler, standard, and tower shield. then you add weapon (shield) masteries.
nothing new for parry or shield parry. that's just something you can narrate to make enemy misses sound exciting. parry is already part of AC.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Wearing someone down in endurance, luck, bruises, etc. is also "dealing damage" in the hit point system. Push/Shove only applies if you're actually _moving_ them across the field/grid. If you're pressing them, and they're pressing back, you're both exerting effort (reducing endurance, and thus hit point damage), but neither of you is significantly moving on the field (so the D&D mechanics of push/shove don't apply to that situation).
And that doesn't account for the opportunity of using the edge of your shield as a bludgeoning surface, or a shield spike or bulge for a shield-face strike. That absolutely could deal actual damage (not just endurance/luck/etc. type damage).
So, all around, yes, shields can "deal damage", whether literally or merely in the D&D sense (where damage is also endurance/luck/etc.).
Sure they can "deal damage" but they are no better at doing so than a bar stool. Thus it is appropriate for using a shield as a weapon to be an "improvised attack" as already implemented in the rules. Personally I'd like improvised weapons to be better so building for them is viable - which is why I liked the Brawler subclass - but apparently not enough of the community agree.
I think if you're a practiced sword & board style fighter, it is likely something you are more proficient with than an improvised attack.
But even if you stick to "improvised attack", the weapon mastery I put forward is merely giving you Proficiency with that sub-type of improvised weapon. If you think that's too narrow, you could make it proficiency with all improvised weapons, but that becomes less thematic.
honestly, I wish attacking without proficiency bonus (at low levels, at least) was more common and acceptable. the game showers us with weapon proficiency to the point that many think 'proficient' just means knowing which end you stick into the enemy.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
The iron boss on the shield could do a lot of damage, and you could absolutely break bones with the edge of the scutum. Smashing the edge of the scutum into an exposed ankle is not 'bashing them down' that's solid damage, though it's putting them on the ground for a gladius strike to finish. I tend to subscribe to the school of thought that hit points represent the stamina to hold up to an enemies attack. After all, a dagger and a 2 handed axe will both kill with one stroke., but stopping that axe strike that doesn't kill takes a lot more out of you than stopping a dagger strike that fails to kill.
Breaking a foot, ankle or shin with the edge of a scutum, or smashing the boss into someone's face is absolutely the kind of damage that will run a barbarian's day and is a long sight more than just pushing them back for passage-of-lines.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha