I've been thinking about this for a while, but why do shields NOT provide better protection versus missile attacks? I'm thinking of house ruling that the attacker suffers Disadvantage to Hit as long as the target can see the attack coming.
In theory a shield could provide cover, but that would be an additional bonus on top of the +2 to your Ac that they give. I'm not sure what you really mean by "better". They already give a bonus to your AC and that makes you harder to hit from everything.
Because HP does not simply represent being hit with an attack and bleeding, it also represents more of the fatigue and mental stamina you have. Getting a HIT does not always mean blood is draw (or in reality it is not supposed to) so shields give you a +2 to AC meaning that they help prevent taking HP damage.
When an attack misses, well that means the shield DID help ward off the attacks of a missile. But frankly if you want shields to help provide better protection Vs arrows, well than I would say fine they give the attacker disadvantage, but the AC is not boosted for that attack then and the PC suffers a -2 to their AC against missile attacks.
I can see the argument.. But then we start getting into strange situations where the shield shouldn't grant protecion against ranged if the character with the shield is enganged in melee because they'd be actively using it for that goal.. Possibly also remove the advantage if an attack is taken if the shielded character is not moving directly towards the shooter.
Im my opinion, you don't want to clutter up the 5e rules too much unless it really adds something cool, and I don't think this is worth it personally.
Well the +2 to armor from shield is assuming that all sheilds even if physically different like wall shields and targets do the same job. the fighter can move the little targ.. where it needs to be and the great shield is simply mostly just there. But that isn't taking cover behind the shield.. taking cover.. If it IS Big enough. drops your speed to 0' Maybe you can attack 5', but can't dodge.. None of that Is RAW just the way taking cover behind shields works in real life it slows you down.. you may get 3/4 or even full cover behind set wall shields but aren't going anywhere.
That said creating a turtle is another option but Still limits speed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Itinerant Deputy Shire-reave Tomas Burrfoot - world walker, Raft-captain, speaker to his dead
Toddy Shelfungus- Rider of the Order of Ill Luck, Speaker to Friends of Friends, and Horribly big nosed
Jarl Archi of Jenisis Glade Fee- Noble Knight of the Dragonborn Goldcrest Clan, Sorcerer of the Noble Investigator;y; Knightly order of the Wolfhound
Shields as written are basically the same as half cover regarding ranged attacks (+2 to AC). That sounds about right for gameplay and a "typical" shield. If 5e ever introduces shield variants (bucklers, towers, etc), I could see additional bonuses/adjustments, but as an "average" of all shield types, half cover seems right
Hmm... I like the general concept of allowing somebody with a shield to better defend themselves against ranged attacks. Personally, I would be more likely to provide the benefits via a homebrewed feat versus just an innate benefit via a house rule, though. Not quite sure what would be most appropriate and balanced rule wise, but here's my initial thought:
Shield Defender
You are especially adept at using your shield to defend yourself against incoming ranged attacks. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
As a bonus action, you can strategically position yourself behind your shield to reduce the chances of being hit by missile fire. Until the start of your next turn, you gain a +3 bonus against ranged weapon attacks.
As a reaction, you can shift your shield to deflect the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take is reduced by 1d10 + you proficiency bonus.
Again, just a quick outline of my idea, but I would probably create something along these lines for my gaming tables if somebody wanted to have a character that had these types of benefits from their shield.
Hmm... I like the general concept of allowing somebody with a shield to better defend themselves against ranged attacks. Personally, I would be more likely to provide the benefits via a homebrewed feat versus just an innate benefit via a house rule, though. Not quite sure what would be most appropriate and balanced rule wise, but here's my initial thought:
Shield Defender
You are especially adept at using your shield to defend yourself against incoming ranged attacks. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
As a bonus action, you can strategically position yourself behind your shield to reduce the chances of being hit by missile fire. Until the start of your next turn, you gain a +3 bonus against ranged weapon attacks.
As a reaction, you can shift your shield to deflect the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take is reduced by 1d10 + you proficiency bonus.
Again, just a quick outline of my idea, but I would probably create something along these lines for my gaming tables if somebody wanted to have a character that had these types of benefits from their shield.
Seems a little much to me. You already position yourself behind your shield and get a +2 to your AC, which is significant. The way i think of it is if the ranged weapon would have hit you if not for your shield, it hit the shield. If it was close to that, it may have hit the shield or some part of your armor and either stuck or was deflected. If it wasn't even close, it missed entirely.
As for your bonus, I would give penalties then to melee attacks while you positioned your shield.against the ranged attack. And how would you protect against ranged attacks coming from 2 sides?
Armor isn't cover. There may be something out there but I can't think of a single game system that doesn't make that distincition between the two actually. If a DM allowed you to use your shield for cover, the AC should drop accordingly. If anything I would actually impose advantage to attacks from all other vectors while you shield cower. The +2 AC you get from the shield presumes you're maximizing it's effectiveness as a piece of armor. If you want to take it out of the AC equation, there should be consequences. .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've been thinking about this for a while, but why do shields NOT provide better protection versus missile attacks? I'm thinking of house ruling that the attacker suffers Disadvantage to Hit as long as the target can see the attack coming.
Thoughts? Thanks
The shield already gives +2 AC vs missiles and other attacks. So this is already covered.
You're also making the assumption that the shield is large enough to matter. Heater Shields like most kids grow up with and Bucklers don't do a darn thing to missile attacks. Kite Shields and Hoplon / Scutum have a great impact on missiles. A plane vanilla Viking Age targe isn't going to do much unless you're lucky enough to get it in the way because it isn't glued to your side like a Hoplon. Then you have a Pavise which isn't designed to be carried so much as propped. Each if these however are represented by the same item for both speed of play and ease of play.
As somebody else said, there are already Arrow Catching Shields in the game.
Heck, people tend to give the Hoplon and Scutum too much credit. They cover about as much as the targe but where they shine is in defense of people around you when you pack in.
Edit: Also, as I think about it, shields aren't arrow proof. They're more like, "arrow resistant". It's really common for arrows to pierce through a shield, especially when it has an arrow head. Flint, bronze, steel, it doesn't matter. As long as it isn't a minimal arrow, it'll poke you in the arm if it hits the right spot. That's part of why bossed shields (targe, buckler, and kite shield) were so popular. They were slightly less comfortable, and you supported the whole weight with your hand/wrist, but the boss itself was metal and good protection for the hand. The rest was wood and arrow resistant.
I think you could add an action for the shield in combat, Ready for Missile Attack, where you crouch behind your shield and grant yourself better protection vs such attacks. Which would then provide the Disadvantage to Missile Attacks like you suggested.
I think you could add an action for the shield in combat, Ready for Missile Attack, where you crouch behind your shield and grant yourself better protection vs such attacks. Which would then provide the Disadvantage to Missile Attacks like you suggested.
I get people wanting the tactical choice to deploy a shield to be more than +2 AC as I guess a trade off for taking their bonus action off hand attack away, I guess. But really if you want to hide behind your shield, there's already a mechanic for it, I think it even allows movement.
The +2 to AC the shield provides, like the bonus to AC all armor provides sort of presumes you're using the armor effectively. Whenever special actions within combat are proposed, I think at the end of the day the amateur military historians who want to bring their knowledge to play their characters better just have to accept that 5e combat is painted in broad strokes, so to speak. Heck, I'd actually narrate someone using RAW in this shield scenario thusly: when you're "hit", the damage doesn't reflect being pierced by arrows, but represents your nerve or will to fight getting sapped by the stress of pressing on into or standing strong before a hail of arrows with this piece of metal getting buffeted as your insurance policy. As your HP wears down, your confidence in your ability to press on saps, making you vulnerable to the actually kill shots, which you take after exposing yourself with a flinch or stutter step. So narratively I'm accommodating what you seem to want, and showing how it can in fact be played that way RAW.
So in short you would descripe HP generally as "willpower to fight" and not actual damage taken? Seems fine to me.
It should, as it's a readily available narrative interpretation of the rules. To recap, this thread was someone wanting shields for some reason to be more effective against missile weapons. Most of the options proposed seem deficient against the options in the RAW, so I'm just advocating if you want to narrate your character taking special precautions against arrows, that's fine, but really the existing RAW address the factor fairly well without having to add some sort of new action mechanic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think you could add an action for the shield in combat, Ready for Missile Attack, where you crouch behind your shield and grant yourself better protection vs such attacks. Which would then provide the Disadvantage to Missile Attacks like you suggested.
I think you could add an action for the shield in combat, Ready for Missile Attack, where you crouch behind your shield and grant yourself better protection vs such attacks. Which would then provide the Disadvantage to Missile Attacks like you suggested.
Oh its in no way better than dodge, was it supposed to be better than dodge?
Why make up a new item-specific action if there's already an action available that does what you want it to do and more? That's just bloating the game.
1) MidnightPlat is right. Adding complexity for the sake of complexity will kill a game.
2) MiG_77's interpretation of HP from MidnightPlat is the best way to actually avoid an accidental TPK and make your characters more believable. Maybe that's when they pass out, or just when they say, "I've had enough. I give up. Take what you want, just don't hurt me."
HUZZAH!
I've been thinking about this for a while, but why do shields NOT provide better protection versus missile attacks? I'm thinking of house ruling that the attacker suffers Disadvantage to Hit as long as the target can see the attack coming.
Thoughts? Thanks
In theory a shield could provide cover, but that would be an additional bonus on top of the +2 to your Ac that they give. I'm not sure what you really mean by "better". They already give a bonus to your AC and that makes you harder to hit from everything.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
Because HP does not simply represent being hit with an attack and bleeding, it also represents more of the fatigue and mental stamina you have. Getting a HIT does not always mean blood is draw (or in reality it is not supposed to) so shields give you a +2 to AC meaning that they help prevent taking HP damage.
When an attack misses, well that means the shield DID help ward off the attacks of a missile. But frankly if you want shields to help provide better protection Vs arrows, well than I would say fine they give the attacker disadvantage, but the AC is not boosted for that attack then and the PC suffers a -2 to their AC against missile attacks.
I can see the argument.. But then we start getting into strange situations where the shield shouldn't grant protecion against ranged if the character with the shield is enganged in melee because they'd be actively using it for that goal.. Possibly also remove the advantage if an attack is taken if the shielded character is not moving directly towards the shooter.
Im my opinion, you don't want to clutter up the 5e rules too much unless it really adds something cool, and I don't think this is worth it personally.
Well the +2 to armor from shield is assuming that all sheilds even if physically different like wall shields and targets do the same job. the fighter can move the little targ.. where it needs to be and the great shield is simply mostly just there.
But that isn't taking cover behind the shield.. taking cover.. If it IS Big enough. drops your speed to 0' Maybe you can attack 5', but can't dodge..
None of that Is RAW just the way taking cover behind shields works in real life it slows you down.. you may get 3/4 or even full cover behind set wall shields but aren't going anywhere.
That said creating a turtle is another option but Still limits speed.
Itinerant Deputy Shire-reave Tomas Burrfoot - world walker, Raft-captain, speaker to his dead
Toddy Shelfungus- Rider of the Order of Ill Luck, Speaker to Friends of Friends, and Horribly big nosed
Jarl Archi of Jenisis Glade Fee- Noble Knight of the Dragonborn Goldcrest Clan, Sorcerer of the Noble Investigator;y; Knightly order of the Wolfhound
Shields as written are basically the same as half cover regarding ranged attacks (+2 to AC). That sounds about right for gameplay and a "typical" shield. If 5e ever introduces shield variants (bucklers, towers, etc), I could see additional bonuses/adjustments, but as an "average" of all shield types, half cover seems right
Hmm... I like the general concept of allowing somebody with a shield to better defend themselves against ranged attacks. Personally, I would be more likely to provide the benefits via a homebrewed feat versus just an innate benefit via a house rule, though. Not quite sure what would be most appropriate and balanced rule wise, but here's my initial thought:
Shield Defender
You are especially adept at using your shield to defend yourself against incoming ranged attacks. You gain the following benefits while you are wielding a shield:
Again, just a quick outline of my idea, but I would probably create something along these lines for my gaming tables if somebody wanted to have a character that had these types of benefits from their shield.
You've all made very good points. Thanks for talking me down from my homebrew perch :).
Seems a little much to me. You already position yourself behind your shield and get a +2 to your AC, which is significant. The way i think of it is if the ranged weapon would have hit you if not for your shield, it hit the shield. If it was close to that, it may have hit the shield or some part of your armor and either stuck or was deflected. If it wasn't even close, it missed entirely.
As for your bonus, I would give penalties then to melee attacks while you positioned your shield.against the ranged attack. And how would you protect against ranged attacks coming from 2 sides?
Armor isn't cover. There may be something out there but I can't think of a single game system that doesn't make that distincition between the two actually. If a DM allowed you to use your shield for cover, the AC should drop accordingly. If anything I would actually impose advantage to attacks from all other vectors while you shield cower. The +2 AC you get from the shield presumes you're maximizing it's effectiveness as a piece of armor. If you want to take it out of the AC equation, there should be consequences. .
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The shield already gives +2 AC vs missiles and other attacks. So this is already covered.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
You're also making the assumption that the shield is large enough to matter. Heater Shields like most kids grow up with and Bucklers don't do a darn thing to missile attacks. Kite Shields and Hoplon / Scutum have a great impact on missiles. A plane vanilla Viking Age targe isn't going to do much unless you're lucky enough to get it in the way because it isn't glued to your side like a Hoplon. Then you have a Pavise which isn't designed to be carried so much as propped. Each if these however are represented by the same item for both speed of play and ease of play.
As somebody else said, there are already Arrow Catching Shields in the game.
Heck, people tend to give the Hoplon and Scutum too much credit. They cover about as much as the targe but where they shine is in defense of people around you when you pack in.
Edit: Also, as I think about it, shields aren't arrow proof. They're more like, "arrow resistant". It's really common for arrows to pierce through a shield, especially when it has an arrow head. Flint, bronze, steel, it doesn't matter. As long as it isn't a minimal arrow, it'll poke you in the arm if it hits the right spot. That's part of why bossed shields (targe, buckler, and kite shield) were so popular. They were slightly less comfortable, and you supported the whole weight with your hand/wrist, but the boss itself was metal and good protection for the hand. The rest was wood and arrow resistant.
I think you could add an action for the shield in combat, Ready for Missile Attack, where you crouch behind your shield and grant yourself better protection vs such attacks. Which would then provide the Disadvantage to Missile Attacks like you suggested.
And that's better than dodge how?
I get people wanting the tactical choice to deploy a shield to be more than +2 AC as I guess a trade off for taking their bonus action off hand attack away, I guess. But really if you want to hide behind your shield, there's already a mechanic for it, I think it even allows movement.
The +2 to AC the shield provides, like the bonus to AC all armor provides sort of presumes you're using the armor effectively. Whenever special actions within combat are proposed, I think at the end of the day the amateur military historians who want to bring their knowledge to play their characters better just have to accept that 5e combat is painted in broad strokes, so to speak. Heck, I'd actually narrate someone using RAW in this shield scenario thusly: when you're "hit", the damage doesn't reflect being pierced by arrows, but represents your nerve or will to fight getting sapped by the stress of pressing on into or standing strong before a hail of arrows with this piece of metal getting buffeted as your insurance policy. As your HP wears down, your confidence in your ability to press on saps, making you vulnerable to the actually kill shots, which you take after exposing yourself with a flinch or stutter step. So narratively I'm accommodating what you seem to want, and showing how it can in fact be played that way RAW.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
So in short you would descripe HP generally as "willpower to fight" and not actual damage taken? Seems fine to me.
It should, as it's a readily available narrative interpretation of the rules. To recap, this thread was someone wanting shields for some reason to be more effective against missile weapons. Most of the options proposed seem deficient against the options in the RAW, so I'm just advocating if you want to narrate your character taking special precautions against arrows, that's fine, but really the existing RAW address the factor fairly well without having to add some sort of new action mechanic.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Oh its in no way better than dodge, was it supposed to be better than dodge?
Why make up a new item-specific action if there's already an action available that does what you want it to do and more? That's just bloating the game.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
1) MidnightPlat is right. Adding complexity for the sake of complexity will kill a game.
2) MiG_77's interpretation of HP from MidnightPlat is the best way to actually avoid an accidental TPK and make your characters more believable. Maybe that's when they pass out, or just when they say, "I've had enough. I give up. Take what you want, just don't hurt me."
Guess some folks like bloat, just putting forward a reasonable way to do what the OP intended, maybe in their games bloat is G.O.A.T., who knows.