Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Nevvur Sep 21, 2014 17:09:36	Been thinking about creating different types of shields with corresponding AC bonuses and action restrictions,, i.e. +1 AC (buckler/light shield) that allows use of hand for some actions, +2 AC (medium shield RAW), +3 AC (tower shield, disadvantage on certain checks)   This has probably been brought up before, but the fail search engine... Link to a known thread discussing shield house rules would be helpful. Else, what are you doing with shields beyond the catch all +2 category if anything?
#2 DM_HEEGZ Sep 21, 2014 18:54:25	I was thinking of a  +2 AC tower shield which is +4 AC vs. missiles, and costs 5 or 10 feet of movement as a trade off.
#3 StuleBrown Sep 21, 2014 20:23:39	Nevvur wrote:
#4 Direach Sep 21, 2014 22:18:36	So far we've just been reskinning the existing "shield" to suit various preferences: buckler, lantern shield, targe, parrying dagger are some of the variations that have come up. We haven't been messing with the AC or mechanics, though; there may be room for that, but until we see how magic items factor into things, and how AC in general works over a longer period of actual play, we're just staying with what's provided so far.   As far as a tower shield, I would suggest that if you move half your speed or less, the tower shield can act as half cover for you against non-AOE ranged attacks. If you do not move at all, the tower shield provides 3/4 cover against non-AOE ranged attacks. If you neither move nor take a regular action on your turn, the tower shield can act as total cover for you against non-AOE ranged attacks. If you move at normal speed or faster, it provides the protection of a normal shield.
#5 Oraibi Sep 21, 2014 23:47:02	I think you're probably better off keeping shields as they are; I'm not sure what real benefits you get from making several different shield types.
#6 Captain_Kobold Sep 22, 2014 10:12:14	Smaller shields are more mobile and can close off and deflect attacks more easily. Larger shields cover more of the body.   I might argue that a shield should be worth more than 2 AC, but I don't see any reason to differentiate shields: the stats could represent anything from buckler to roman really.
#7 NoNeedForNames Sep 22, 2014 10:18:33	Captain_Kobold wrote:
(Reply to #7) Bloodscythe	NoNeedForNames wrote:
#9 PetardoMauriti Sep 22, 2014 11:57:43	There was a shield in playtest I think, but they removed it for some reason. Maybe it will appear in later books, dunno.
#10 Ansbach Sep 22, 2014 12:15:44	I think the idea of +1 bucklers and +3 tower shields is fine if you want to expand on the basic rules, but the key to making them effective would be strong bonuses for bucklers and strong penalties for tower shields - otherwise you are just adding an extra point of AC for the min-maxer types.
(Reply to #8) NoNeedForNames	Bloodscythe wrote:
#12 Nevvur Sep 24, 2014 4:32:23	Thanks for the input everyone! I'm not going for a reality simulator with 5th edition, but having all types of shields function exactly the same makes about as much sense to me as having all weapons do 1d8 damage.    After reading your suggestions, I'm taking several of them into consideration. Tentatively (i.e. I would appreciate further input):   buckler/light shield: +1AC, allows the use of the shield hand as if it were a free hand, but the AC bonus does not apply until the start of the wearer's next turn if the shield hand is used during the current turn for this purpose. Any dexterity checks (use an item, bonus action off-hand attack) made with the shield hand have a maximum ability modifier of 2. tower shield: +2 AC, reduces movement by 5', provides half-cover if the dodge action is taken.   Two things occured to me while writing this point. Certain class and race features might need extra consideration (which is probably why some of you recommended against tweaking shields) when using either version. For instance, a buckler doesn't seem like it ought to be very good at the reaction allowed by Protection fighting style, and would dwarves be penalized for the tower shield movement reduction?
#13 Direach Sep 24, 2014 7:30:38	In my experience, tower shields are not so much heavy as very cumbersome. There's no reason a tower shield will slow you down (unless you're too weak to carry one), but they are clumsy, and much better at keeping out bolts and arrows than keeping mobile attackers off of you. Rather than a speed penalty, I'd put a Strength minimum on it, probably 13. I'd give it a permanent half cover bonus against ranged non-AOE attacks, and 3/4 cover if you Dodge (or more like "Duck Behind").
#14 Kazadvorn Sep 24, 2014 7:39:04	You have to consider active vs. passive defense.   A smaller shield is quicker to move and can easily serve as an improvised off-hand weapon. But it requires active defense to really reach it's full potential. The medium shield will provide a better passive defense even if the fighter isn't really focused on full defense. The tower or large shield is mostly a passive defense with more limited mobility.   I think they were just considering the generic effect of having a shield. The mobility of the smaller shield offsetting it's smaller area, or conversely the size of the larger shield's area being less effective due to lack of mobility.   There's alot you can work into this if you want to really expand the variablity of shields.   Strength/Race of the wielder. A strong character could more easily manuver a larger shield. A large character would benefit less from the passive cover provided by a medium shield. A buckler might be passive AC +1 but AC+2 if the player was on full defense.
#15 Direach Sep 24, 2014 9:31:56	Personally I advocate just using the shield as it is, mechanically, and reskinning it to look like the kind of shield you want. Once you start tinkering with the AC mechanics, you get into grey area real fast. But, that said, if your group is into it and likes experimenting with variant equipment, go for it. No harm in trying!
#16 Timborama Sep 24, 2014 10:44:20	Direach wrote:
(Reply to #16) Nevvur	I totally understand peoples' inclination to prefer leaving shields alone if ONLY for the sake of keeping it simple, but I stand by what I said earlier. If there are no differences among shields, why should there be any difference among weapons? A longsowrd and a dagger are both just blades in the same way that a buckler and a tower shield are both just shields. It simply doesn't sit well in my mind that they should have the same defensive properties when I'm picturing combat in my head.    I think the strength 13 requirement on tower shields is a good addition to the movement penalty, but anything more than the 1/2 cover on dodge as a bonus approaches that 'too good to pass up' point. I'm pretty happy with the version of buckers/towers I posted above. Thanks again for the ideas, I'm going to take this house rule live to the next game and see if anyone bites.