Allow me to preface this by saying I don't have a problem with dual wielding, nor carrying a shield into battle... However the shield can often-times feel anachronistic (consider the duelist fighter w/ a rapier) There is no reason why a character should HAVE TO populate their free hand with a shortsword or shield, and I wanted to give my players something of value in exchange for dropping that shield. I was thinking about offering a second bonus action per round to characters who drop the shield/second weapon, simply for variety sake.
What do you think? Abusable? Overpowered? Interesting? I'd still rather have a shield or offhand weapon?
Can you think of a character that could really exploit this? If you can, does it detract from the game in any meaningful way? What character combinations have a constipated action economy that might really need a second bonus action?
Some of the big ones that have jumped out at me:
Monks could make 2 unarmed strikes per turn without spending a ki point (flurry of blows must be taken immediately after your main action)
Double healing word in a single round
Sorcerer could convert a spell slot into sorcery points, and then spend those points in the same turn
Crossbow master: Attack, fire crossbow, fire crossbow (wouldn't be legal since off-hand isn't free)
Double Smite (2 spell slots)? Bigby's hand? Heat metal? Spiritual weapon? Mordekainen's Sword?<--- (might be too OP. Might have to rule that the bonus action cannot be used to re-activate a spell or feature that has already been activated once this round.)
I already have, actually. At my table we use a modified inspiration rule which I go into here. All my players have inspiration ALL THE TIME!
Reguardless, I'm looking for a long-term bonus to encourage a variety of playstyles. Inspiration is meant to be positive re-inforcement for "good" behavior. I don't consider dropping the shield to be "good" behavior, so much as I think Somebody grabbing a shield because they have nothing better to do with their off-hand and they have a "slot to fill" to be bad game design. If someone wants to be a sword and board paladin, then great! If someone wants to be a swashbuckling pirate then that's cool too!
I don't like the 2nd bonus action, it breaks the game too much (you have to make more rules to limit the bonus action?... then why have it at all?)
How about allowing them to throw objects/ or manipulate objects with that off-hand to distract foes attacks... giving them disadvantage.
Or doing sort of the same thing, but to the path of an advancing foe... creating difficult terrain for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Consider the Rogue archetype Swashbuckler from SCAG. This seems to be the epitome of a duelist character - but the word Swashbuckler comes partially from the word buckler. A buckler is a (small) shield. Pure Rogues may not be able to equip shields but I can certainly see it working with a finesse Fighter.
Perhaps you could explore more appropriate shields, from a stylistic/flavour viewpoint. A smaller shield that causes less fatigue on the arm, and can be moved quicker to 'parry', rather than a large knightly kite-shield. It could/should retain the same +2 AC, only have a different flavour. Something akin to the image below:
A few video games do offer a bonus to only having a single one-handed weapon, and thus a free hand. Typically these come down to accuracy bonuses, representing the fine control your character has with only having to direct one weapon - without the weight or unwieldy qualities of a two-hander. You could take some inspiration from that and look at the Fighter's Duelist Fighting Style. You could change it from a +2 to damage, to a +2 to melee weapon attack rolls and damage if wielding nothing in your offhand.
Typically these come down to accuracy bonuses, representing the fine control your character has with only having to direct one weapon - without the weight or unwieldy qualities of a two-hander. You could take some inspiration from that and look at the Fighter's Duelist Fighting Style. You could change it from a +2 to damage, to a +2 to melee weapon attack rolls and damage if wielding nothing in your offhand.
I did consider this, actually. It actually goes towards another pet-peve of mine, which is that ranged characters can get huge bonuses to their to-hit and virtually guarantee every attack will hit. (this is mechanically balanced vs classes that can take more attacks, but I despise rolling dice when the outcome is so forgone that it serves no purpose; nevertheless, if a fighter were to drop his second sword (giving up half of his attacks) then a small + to hit seems warranted.) I tend to get really touchy around + to hits. Irrationally so, perhaps, but it is something to consider.
Meanwhile, I take it that both of you are against my original suggestion? If so, can you think of a specific instance where it would be broken or unworkable e.g. gamebreaking? I've considered it from a lot of angles, and the simple fact is that generally, bonus actions and regular actions are not interchangeable. Allowing the rogue to Disengage AND HIDE every turn, for instance seems powerful to me, but not game-breaking (a number of tables will allow this play-style out of sheer ignorance.)
+1 to attack may be more balanced than a +2 in this instance, with the no-shield Duelist fighting style suggestion.
Otherwise yes, personally I'm not a fan of the double bonus-action thing. You have to keep in mind a spellcaster with nothing in hand, using a component pouch, has two free hands, and even with a typical Arcane Focus will have a free hand. Every primary spellcaster having two bonus actions seems unnecessary, even if there are few uses - there are uses. By this logic they could surely argue for three bonus actions. As could an Monk using unarmed attacks.
Rogue and Bard are two examples that spring to mind of this being particularly overpowered, between two Cunning Actions (see the Thief subclass's feature that broadens Cunning Action, too), a bard being able to attack, cast a bonus action spell, and use Bardic Inspiration. There are various other examples - the whole game, from its classes to its feats, are all designed around a very specific action economy. It may not seem 'gamebreaking' but it's giving a big advantage to certain characters.
Well, obviously. Like I said, it's an incentive. By definition, if it was USELESS to the player, it would not alter their decisions. This is meant to force characters to re-consider the assumption built into 5e that every idle hand is a wasted hand, and that there is no drawback whatsoever to carrying a shield or second blade, to the point where intentionally not doing so is irrational.
By this logic they could surely argue for three bonus actions.
They would lose that argument. #DM makes the rules.
Although, given the caveat I mentioned above, I struggle to imagine a situation where a bajillion bonus actions would be truly problematic(wild hyperbole not withstanding). Hence this thread. I want to know what I'm in store for.
Rogues getting sneak attack every round. (I just offered a rogue at my table a pair of boots that would have guaranteed she could get multiple sneak attacks per day, outside of normal advantage and whatnot. Not unlimited, mind you, but enough that she'd be able to guarantee them in when she needed them)
Bards using Attack + Smite + Bigby's hand (or yes, inspiration, but that honestly would not concern me.)
I think the problem is to think of every possible abuse. Higher level characters are especially hard to judge. Take the lvl 5 Far Step spell. The wording could mean that you can teleport only once each turn using the spell but if not: two 60 ft teleports can be tough to handle. Take the lvl 7 Crown of Stars spell: two bonus actions mean two bonus attacks. A lot of combinations may become problematic.
I would also give some more limited advantage like being able to either give +1 or +2 to one attack per turn or increase AC by +1 or +2 against one attack per turn. You might even allow the character to choose each turn.
Find a way to use a shield in real life and you will see how under-rated they are in most roleplaying systems. There is a reason why shields are still used today by police and prison warders alike. Yes, you mostly see them being used in a line, as that is the most effective use, but believe me, even in one on combat, a sizeable shield is a massive advantage. Having an empty off-hand in combat is a waste. The tonfa-te is a brilliant weapon as it allows a massive range of Karate moves with almost no adjustment of technique required (It nestles up against the outside of the forearm.) Again, many police forces around the world use them in place of the trusty baton.
The main-gauche (literally left hand) in fencing may not look much but the advantage it gives compared with cocking your arm behind your head just to get an improved lunge with a foil/sabre/epee would be enough to tip the scales of victory between comparably skilled duellists.
Give the characters something to do with a free hand - like swinging from a rope, holding a beer, throwing strangely-bubbling vials, maybe even having that shortbow ready for when the enemy turns tail and runs, and perhaps they will leave a hand free for those heroic moments....just don't try and persuade them that a shield/second weapon is not a good idea!
I would also give some more limited advantage like being able to either give +1 or +2 to one attack per turn or increase AC by +1 or +2 against one attack per turn. You might even allow the character to choose each turn.
oh, I reaaaaally like that. Adaptable combat... and an advantage that skews more towards empowering the fighter classes that tend to use shields anyway! I will definitely consider this for my table!
I take it your players are more of the maximising utility variety and not the role-playing variety? I mean personally, the chance to look like Aragorn is enough for me to have only a sword in hand. But, if they like the idea of gaining stat bonuses (which isn't a bad thing), then give them some magic items to hold in their hands, things that give combat utility in the non- traditional way. Maybe have a stone that can cast hold person once or a few times per day, or a ring that when wielded in the offhand can allow someone to use a reaction to avoid damage from a ranged attack, etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Public Mod Note(MellieDM): Please do not revive old threads as per our Thread Necromancy rules. You can open a new discussion with our present community!
Very late, but I would consider adding an ac bonus of +2 to the defensive duelist feat when wielding a finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand.
Public Mod Note
(MellieDM):
Please do not revive old threads as per our Thread Necromancy rules. You can open a new discussion with our present community!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(flurry of blowsmust be taken immediately after your main action)Crossbow master: Attack, fire crossbow, fire crossbow(wouldn't be legal since off-hand isn't free)Anything else? Thoughts?
How about giving them inspiration?
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
I already have, actually. At my table we use a modified inspiration rule which I go into here. All my players have inspiration ALL THE TIME!
Reguardless, I'm looking for a long-term bonus to encourage a variety of playstyles. Inspiration is meant to be positive re-inforcement for "good" behavior. I don't consider dropping the shield to be "good" behavior, so much as I think Somebody grabbing a shield because they have nothing better to do with their off-hand and they have a "slot to fill" to be bad game design. If someone wants to be a sword and board paladin, then great! If someone wants to be a swashbuckling pirate then that's cool too!
I don't like the 2nd bonus action, it breaks the game too much (you have to make more rules to limit the bonus action?... then why have it at all?)
How about allowing them to throw objects/ or manipulate objects with that off-hand to distract foes attacks... giving them disadvantage.
Or doing sort of the same thing, but to the path of an advancing foe... creating difficult terrain for them.
I've mixed thoughts, it's an interesting topic.
Consider the Rogue archetype Swashbuckler from SCAG. This seems to be the epitome of a duelist character - but the word Swashbuckler comes partially from the word buckler. A buckler is a (small) shield. Pure Rogues may not be able to equip shields but I can certainly see it working with a finesse Fighter.
Perhaps you could explore more appropriate shields, from a stylistic/flavour viewpoint. A smaller shield that causes less fatigue on the arm, and can be moved quicker to 'parry', rather than a large knightly kite-shield. It could/should retain the same +2 AC, only have a different flavour. Something akin to the image below:
A few video games do offer a bonus to only having a single one-handed weapon, and thus a free hand. Typically these come down to accuracy bonuses, representing the fine control your character has with only having to direct one weapon - without the weight or unwieldy qualities of a two-hander. You could take some inspiration from that and look at the Fighter's Duelist Fighting Style. You could change it from a +2 to damage, to a +2 to melee weapon attack rolls and damage if wielding nothing in your offhand.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
I did consider this, actually. It actually goes towards another pet-peve of mine, which is that ranged characters can get huge bonuses to their to-hit and virtually guarantee every attack will hit. (this is mechanically balanced vs classes that can take more attacks, but I despise rolling dice when the outcome is so forgone that it serves no purpose; nevertheless, if a fighter were to drop his second sword (giving up half of his attacks) then a small + to hit seems warranted.) I tend to get really touchy around + to hits. Irrationally so, perhaps, but it is something to consider.
Meanwhile, I take it that both of you are against my original suggestion? If so, can you think of a specific instance where it would be broken or unworkable e.g. gamebreaking? I've considered it from a lot of angles, and the simple fact is that generally, bonus actions and regular actions are not interchangeable. Allowing the rogue to Disengage AND HIDE every turn, for instance seems powerful to me, but not game-breaking (a number of tables will allow this play-style out of sheer ignorance.)
+1 to attack may be more balanced than a +2 in this instance, with the no-shield Duelist fighting style suggestion.
Otherwise yes, personally I'm not a fan of the double bonus-action thing. You have to keep in mind a spellcaster with nothing in hand, using a component pouch, has two free hands, and even with a typical Arcane Focus will have a free hand. Every primary spellcaster having two bonus actions seems unnecessary, even if there are few uses - there are uses. By this logic they could surely argue for three bonus actions. As could an Monk using unarmed attacks.
Rogue and Bard are two examples that spring to mind of this being particularly overpowered, between two Cunning Actions (see the Thief subclass's feature that broadens Cunning Action, too), a bard being able to attack, cast a bonus action spell, and use Bardic Inspiration. There are various other examples - the whole game, from its classes to its feats, are all designed around a very specific action economy. It may not seem 'gamebreaking' but it's giving a big advantage to certain characters.
Site Rules & Guidelines - Please feel free to message a moderator if you have any concerns.
My homebrew: [Subclasses] [Races] [Feats] [Discussion Thread]
Well, obviously. Like I said, it's an incentive. By definition, if it was USELESS to the player, it would not alter their decisions. This is meant to force characters to re-consider the assumption built into 5e that every idle hand is a wasted hand, and that there is no drawback whatsoever to carrying a shield or second blade, to the point where intentionally not doing so is irrational.
They would lose that argument. #DM makes the rules.
Although, given the caveat I mentioned above, I struggle to imagine a situation where a bajillion bonus actions would be truly problematic(wild hyperbole not withstanding). Hence this thread. I want to know what I'm in store for.
What else?
I think the problem is to think of every possible abuse. Higher level characters are especially hard to judge. Take the lvl 5 Far Step spell. The wording could mean that you can teleport only once each turn using the spell but if not: two 60 ft teleports can be tough to handle. Take the lvl 7 Crown of Stars spell: two bonus actions mean two bonus attacks. A lot of combinations may become problematic.
I would also give some more limited advantage like being able to either give +1 or +2 to one attack per turn or increase AC by +1 or +2 against one attack per turn. You might even allow the character to choose each turn.
Find a way to use a shield in real life and you will see how under-rated they are in most roleplaying systems. There is a reason why shields are still used today by police and prison warders alike. Yes, you mostly see them being used in a line, as that is the most effective use, but believe me, even in one on combat, a sizeable shield is a massive advantage.
Having an empty off-hand in combat is a waste. The tonfa-te is a brilliant weapon as it allows a massive range of Karate moves with almost no adjustment of technique required (It nestles up against the outside of the forearm.) Again, many police forces around the world use them in place of the trusty baton.
The main-gauche (literally left hand) in fencing may not look much but the advantage it gives compared with cocking your arm behind your head just to get an improved lunge with a foil/sabre/epee would be enough to tip the scales of victory between comparably skilled duellists.
Give the characters something to do with a free hand - like swinging from a rope, holding a beer, throwing strangely-bubbling vials, maybe even having that shortbow ready for when the enemy turns tail and runs, and perhaps they will leave a hand free for those heroic moments....just don't try and persuade them that a shield/second weapon is not a good idea!
Roleplaying since Runequest.
oh, I reaaaaally like that. Adaptable combat... and an advantage that skews more towards empowering the fighter classes that tend to use shields anyway! I will definitely consider this for my table!
I take it your players are more of the maximising utility variety and not the role-playing variety? I mean personally, the chance to look like Aragorn is enough for me to have only a sword in hand. But, if they like the idea of gaining stat bonuses (which isn't a bad thing), then give them some magic items to hold in their hands, things that give combat utility in the non- traditional way. Maybe have a stone that can cast hold person once or a few times per day, or a ring that when wielded in the offhand can allow someone to use a reaction to avoid damage from a ranged attack, etc
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
Very late, but I would consider adding an ac bonus of +2 to the defensive duelist feat when wielding a finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other hand.