Are there any outlying considerations if I treat donning a shield as an object interaction during the first...












8












$begingroup$


A shield takes 1 action to equip (PHB 146). I'm an new DM and would like to allow that in the first round of battle the PC may use the "interact with objects" time (PHB 190) to equip its shield, if not already equipped.



Reason I want to allow this is that I don't like the PC to always have its shield up, just in case there's going to be a battle.



Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but could there be any reason I might consider to not have this house rule?










share|improve this question









New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
    $endgroup$
    – MikeQ
    6 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$


A shield takes 1 action to equip (PHB 146). I'm an new DM and would like to allow that in the first round of battle the PC may use the "interact with objects" time (PHB 190) to equip its shield, if not already equipped.



Reason I want to allow this is that I don't like the PC to always have its shield up, just in case there's going to be a battle.



Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but could there be any reason I might consider to not have this house rule?










share|improve this question









New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
    $endgroup$
    – MikeQ
    6 hours ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$


A shield takes 1 action to equip (PHB 146). I'm an new DM and would like to allow that in the first round of battle the PC may use the "interact with objects" time (PHB 190) to equip its shield, if not already equipped.



Reason I want to allow this is that I don't like the PC to always have its shield up, just in case there's going to be a battle.



Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but could there be any reason I might consider to not have this house rule?










share|improve this question









New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




A shield takes 1 action to equip (PHB 146). I'm an new DM and would like to allow that in the first round of battle the PC may use the "interact with objects" time (PHB 190) to equip its shield, if not already equipped.



Reason I want to allow this is that I don't like the PC to always have its shield up, just in case there's going to be a battle.



Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but could there be any reason I might consider to not have this house rule?







dnd-5e balance house-rules actions shield






share|improve this question









New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









V2Blast

23.4k375147




23.4k375147






New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









svenemasvenema

411




411




New contributor




svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






svenema is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
    $endgroup$
    – MikeQ
    6 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
    $endgroup$
    – David Coffron
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
    $endgroup$
    – MikeQ
    6 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Welcome to the site. Meta is for questions about the website itself. You've posted your question in the perfect place. Feel free to take our tour for more about how things work here. Happy stacking!
$endgroup$
– David Coffron
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Welcome to RPG.SE! Take the tour if you haven't already, and check out the help center for more guidance.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
$endgroup$
– MikeQ
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Related: How long does it take to equip a shield?
$endgroup$
– MikeQ
6 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

It devalues "social combat" tactical decisions.



The decision to wield a shield or not has in-game consequences, from both combat and social interaction perspectives.



Mechanically, shields offer a +2 AC bonus (a significant boost in D&D 5E's bounded accuracy system) and require an action to don/doff (a premium resource in the action economy).



A wielded shield indicates that the bearer is expecting a fight. This probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows if you bumped into a merry band of adventurers running around the wilderness or dungeon, but it has a different social context in more civilised locations. Shopkeepers, tavern owners, and city guards may be rightly concerned to see a group of armed mercenaries roll up like they're spoiling for a fight.



The decision to remove shields is a tactical one. Does the party want to try to pass through peacefully, but potentially leave themselves more defensibly vulnerable if a fight arose? Or are they willing to potentially create conflict in order to maintain their defensive capabilities?



Being able to efficiently don a shield with an object interaction undermines this social combat. With this Homebrew rule, you give the PCs the ability to circumvent these social combat scenarios and still maintain combat readiness. This rule removes that decision making and could produce less interesting scenarios as a result.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    6 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

No, You would need to house rule it.




  • Specific Rules Beat General


Unfortunately with there being a rule that specifically addresses shields and how they are equipped, they override the "use an object" set of rules. You would be required to find another rule that specifically states something to the effect "You may don this shield as a Free or Bonus action." This would be a RAW interpretation.



From a functional standpoint - most tables ignore micromanaging shield equips.



Functionally, in most games, it is assumed that while adventuring, characters are in full armor, ready with their equipment at any moment's notice. The idea here is that the hero in question is carrying their shield equipped as they traverse the wilderness or dungeon delve. Only if a character specifically states they have slung the shield on their back to keep their hands free would they need to "equip" their shield during any particular moment in combat.



Realistically you will only have to observe this rule for specific thematic scenarios - such as being ambushed in the middle of the night while the fighter in question is asleep. The need to scramble and grab their shield and sword now becomes choice the player needs to make, and can heighten the sense of danger and whether or not taking that extra moment to get their AC up is worth the loss in positioning or attacks.



Another scenario is in the event the fighter needs to use two hands to do something - you remind them they have to drop their shield in order to accomplish it. Then it's acceptable to micromanage and force action economy to re-equip the shield. This again creates a meaningful choice and combat mechanic to the event or scenario.



In conclusion - Only if you are truly rules lawyering / nitpicking the party state at every possible moment would you need to micromanage shield equips (or if the player is carrying multiple magical shields they like to swap out). Adding a single piece of gear a player has to constantly micromanage will slow the game down and potentially cause a focus shift away from the adventure, and closer to a table top combat simulator.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    55 mins ago



















0












$begingroup$

Personally, I tend to lean towards the PC/NPC interactions, and that means dealing with the social cost of carrying your shield up and ready for combat while wandering around the tavern, or if they have a shield on them at all while attending a high society event. In this type of story, the dangers are not always HP loss. And "the right action" isn't always a fight. But the players need to decide going into events what kind of interaction they want to have. (Fight or Social) And what kind of trade offs they want to make.



The flip side is the more cinematic world where your dressed in a full tux, a fight breaks out, and you tear off your tux revealing full plate beneath and the PC promptly draws their Buster Sword from whoknowswhere.



Neither story type is "Best". It all depends on what kind of play style you and your players enjoy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    5 hours ago













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});






svenema is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142300%2fare-there-any-outlying-considerations-if-i-treat-donning-a-shield-as-an-object-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









11












$begingroup$

It devalues "social combat" tactical decisions.



The decision to wield a shield or not has in-game consequences, from both combat and social interaction perspectives.



Mechanically, shields offer a +2 AC bonus (a significant boost in D&D 5E's bounded accuracy system) and require an action to don/doff (a premium resource in the action economy).



A wielded shield indicates that the bearer is expecting a fight. This probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows if you bumped into a merry band of adventurers running around the wilderness or dungeon, but it has a different social context in more civilised locations. Shopkeepers, tavern owners, and city guards may be rightly concerned to see a group of armed mercenaries roll up like they're spoiling for a fight.



The decision to remove shields is a tactical one. Does the party want to try to pass through peacefully, but potentially leave themselves more defensibly vulnerable if a fight arose? Or are they willing to potentially create conflict in order to maintain their defensive capabilities?



Being able to efficiently don a shield with an object interaction undermines this social combat. With this Homebrew rule, you give the PCs the ability to circumvent these social combat scenarios and still maintain combat readiness. This rule removes that decision making and could produce less interesting scenarios as a result.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    6 hours ago
















11












$begingroup$

It devalues "social combat" tactical decisions.



The decision to wield a shield or not has in-game consequences, from both combat and social interaction perspectives.



Mechanically, shields offer a +2 AC bonus (a significant boost in D&D 5E's bounded accuracy system) and require an action to don/doff (a premium resource in the action economy).



A wielded shield indicates that the bearer is expecting a fight. This probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows if you bumped into a merry band of adventurers running around the wilderness or dungeon, but it has a different social context in more civilised locations. Shopkeepers, tavern owners, and city guards may be rightly concerned to see a group of armed mercenaries roll up like they're spoiling for a fight.



The decision to remove shields is a tactical one. Does the party want to try to pass through peacefully, but potentially leave themselves more defensibly vulnerable if a fight arose? Or are they willing to potentially create conflict in order to maintain their defensive capabilities?



Being able to efficiently don a shield with an object interaction undermines this social combat. With this Homebrew rule, you give the PCs the ability to circumvent these social combat scenarios and still maintain combat readiness. This rule removes that decision making and could produce less interesting scenarios as a result.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    6 hours ago














11












11








11





$begingroup$

It devalues "social combat" tactical decisions.



The decision to wield a shield or not has in-game consequences, from both combat and social interaction perspectives.



Mechanically, shields offer a +2 AC bonus (a significant boost in D&D 5E's bounded accuracy system) and require an action to don/doff (a premium resource in the action economy).



A wielded shield indicates that the bearer is expecting a fight. This probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows if you bumped into a merry band of adventurers running around the wilderness or dungeon, but it has a different social context in more civilised locations. Shopkeepers, tavern owners, and city guards may be rightly concerned to see a group of armed mercenaries roll up like they're spoiling for a fight.



The decision to remove shields is a tactical one. Does the party want to try to pass through peacefully, but potentially leave themselves more defensibly vulnerable if a fight arose? Or are they willing to potentially create conflict in order to maintain their defensive capabilities?



Being able to efficiently don a shield with an object interaction undermines this social combat. With this Homebrew rule, you give the PCs the ability to circumvent these social combat scenarios and still maintain combat readiness. This rule removes that decision making and could produce less interesting scenarios as a result.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



It devalues "social combat" tactical decisions.



The decision to wield a shield or not has in-game consequences, from both combat and social interaction perspectives.



Mechanically, shields offer a +2 AC bonus (a significant boost in D&D 5E's bounded accuracy system) and require an action to don/doff (a premium resource in the action economy).



A wielded shield indicates that the bearer is expecting a fight. This probably wouldn't raise any eyebrows if you bumped into a merry band of adventurers running around the wilderness or dungeon, but it has a different social context in more civilised locations. Shopkeepers, tavern owners, and city guards may be rightly concerned to see a group of armed mercenaries roll up like they're spoiling for a fight.



The decision to remove shields is a tactical one. Does the party want to try to pass through peacefully, but potentially leave themselves more defensibly vulnerable if a fight arose? Or are they willing to potentially create conflict in order to maintain their defensive capabilities?



Being able to efficiently don a shield with an object interaction undermines this social combat. With this Homebrew rule, you give the PCs the ability to circumvent these social combat scenarios and still maintain combat readiness. This rule removes that decision making and could produce less interesting scenarios as a result.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









NesbittoNesbitto

9341412




9341412








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    6 hours ago














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    6 hours ago








4




4




$begingroup$
Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
$endgroup$
– Corbin Matheson
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Have an upvote, my only recommendation would be to recognize that some story telling styles are more "super hero" in nature and wearing a tux over your platemail is totally legit.
$endgroup$
– Corbin Matheson
6 hours ago













1












$begingroup$

No, You would need to house rule it.




  • Specific Rules Beat General


Unfortunately with there being a rule that specifically addresses shields and how they are equipped, they override the "use an object" set of rules. You would be required to find another rule that specifically states something to the effect "You may don this shield as a Free or Bonus action." This would be a RAW interpretation.



From a functional standpoint - most tables ignore micromanaging shield equips.



Functionally, in most games, it is assumed that while adventuring, characters are in full armor, ready with their equipment at any moment's notice. The idea here is that the hero in question is carrying their shield equipped as they traverse the wilderness or dungeon delve. Only if a character specifically states they have slung the shield on their back to keep their hands free would they need to "equip" their shield during any particular moment in combat.



Realistically you will only have to observe this rule for specific thematic scenarios - such as being ambushed in the middle of the night while the fighter in question is asleep. The need to scramble and grab their shield and sword now becomes choice the player needs to make, and can heighten the sense of danger and whether or not taking that extra moment to get their AC up is worth the loss in positioning or attacks.



Another scenario is in the event the fighter needs to use two hands to do something - you remind them they have to drop their shield in order to accomplish it. Then it's acceptable to micromanage and force action economy to re-equip the shield. This again creates a meaningful choice and combat mechanic to the event or scenario.



In conclusion - Only if you are truly rules lawyering / nitpicking the party state at every possible moment would you need to micromanage shield equips (or if the player is carrying multiple magical shields they like to swap out). Adding a single piece of gear a player has to constantly micromanage will slow the game down and potentially cause a focus shift away from the adventure, and closer to a table top combat simulator.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    55 mins ago
















1












$begingroup$

No, You would need to house rule it.




  • Specific Rules Beat General


Unfortunately with there being a rule that specifically addresses shields and how they are equipped, they override the "use an object" set of rules. You would be required to find another rule that specifically states something to the effect "You may don this shield as a Free or Bonus action." This would be a RAW interpretation.



From a functional standpoint - most tables ignore micromanaging shield equips.



Functionally, in most games, it is assumed that while adventuring, characters are in full armor, ready with their equipment at any moment's notice. The idea here is that the hero in question is carrying their shield equipped as they traverse the wilderness or dungeon delve. Only if a character specifically states they have slung the shield on their back to keep their hands free would they need to "equip" their shield during any particular moment in combat.



Realistically you will only have to observe this rule for specific thematic scenarios - such as being ambushed in the middle of the night while the fighter in question is asleep. The need to scramble and grab their shield and sword now becomes choice the player needs to make, and can heighten the sense of danger and whether or not taking that extra moment to get their AC up is worth the loss in positioning or attacks.



Another scenario is in the event the fighter needs to use two hands to do something - you remind them they have to drop their shield in order to accomplish it. Then it's acceptable to micromanage and force action economy to re-equip the shield. This again creates a meaningful choice and combat mechanic to the event or scenario.



In conclusion - Only if you are truly rules lawyering / nitpicking the party state at every possible moment would you need to micromanage shield equips (or if the player is carrying multiple magical shields they like to swap out). Adding a single piece of gear a player has to constantly micromanage will slow the game down and potentially cause a focus shift away from the adventure, and closer to a table top combat simulator.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    55 mins ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$

No, You would need to house rule it.




  • Specific Rules Beat General


Unfortunately with there being a rule that specifically addresses shields and how they are equipped, they override the "use an object" set of rules. You would be required to find another rule that specifically states something to the effect "You may don this shield as a Free or Bonus action." This would be a RAW interpretation.



From a functional standpoint - most tables ignore micromanaging shield equips.



Functionally, in most games, it is assumed that while adventuring, characters are in full armor, ready with their equipment at any moment's notice. The idea here is that the hero in question is carrying their shield equipped as they traverse the wilderness or dungeon delve. Only if a character specifically states they have slung the shield on their back to keep their hands free would they need to "equip" their shield during any particular moment in combat.



Realistically you will only have to observe this rule for specific thematic scenarios - such as being ambushed in the middle of the night while the fighter in question is asleep. The need to scramble and grab their shield and sword now becomes choice the player needs to make, and can heighten the sense of danger and whether or not taking that extra moment to get their AC up is worth the loss in positioning or attacks.



Another scenario is in the event the fighter needs to use two hands to do something - you remind them they have to drop their shield in order to accomplish it. Then it's acceptable to micromanage and force action economy to re-equip the shield. This again creates a meaningful choice and combat mechanic to the event or scenario.



In conclusion - Only if you are truly rules lawyering / nitpicking the party state at every possible moment would you need to micromanage shield equips (or if the player is carrying multiple magical shields they like to swap out). Adding a single piece of gear a player has to constantly micromanage will slow the game down and potentially cause a focus shift away from the adventure, and closer to a table top combat simulator.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



No, You would need to house rule it.




  • Specific Rules Beat General


Unfortunately with there being a rule that specifically addresses shields and how they are equipped, they override the "use an object" set of rules. You would be required to find another rule that specifically states something to the effect "You may don this shield as a Free or Bonus action." This would be a RAW interpretation.



From a functional standpoint - most tables ignore micromanaging shield equips.



Functionally, in most games, it is assumed that while adventuring, characters are in full armor, ready with their equipment at any moment's notice. The idea here is that the hero in question is carrying their shield equipped as they traverse the wilderness or dungeon delve. Only if a character specifically states they have slung the shield on their back to keep their hands free would they need to "equip" their shield during any particular moment in combat.



Realistically you will only have to observe this rule for specific thematic scenarios - such as being ambushed in the middle of the night while the fighter in question is asleep. The need to scramble and grab their shield and sword now becomes choice the player needs to make, and can heighten the sense of danger and whether or not taking that extra moment to get their AC up is worth the loss in positioning or attacks.



Another scenario is in the event the fighter needs to use two hands to do something - you remind them they have to drop their shield in order to accomplish it. Then it's acceptable to micromanage and force action economy to re-equip the shield. This again creates a meaningful choice and combat mechanic to the event or scenario.



In conclusion - Only if you are truly rules lawyering / nitpicking the party state at every possible moment would you need to micromanage shield equips (or if the player is carrying multiple magical shields they like to swap out). Adding a single piece of gear a player has to constantly micromanage will slow the game down and potentially cause a focus shift away from the adventure, and closer to a table top combat simulator.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago









V2Blast

23.4k375147




23.4k375147










answered 6 hours ago









Play PatricePlay Patrice

2,021424




2,021424












  • $begingroup$
    The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    55 mins ago


















  • $begingroup$
    The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Wells
    55 mins ago
















$begingroup$
The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
55 mins ago




$begingroup$
The question is specifically about adopting a house rule to this effect.
$endgroup$
– Mark Wells
55 mins ago











0












$begingroup$

Personally, I tend to lean towards the PC/NPC interactions, and that means dealing with the social cost of carrying your shield up and ready for combat while wandering around the tavern, or if they have a shield on them at all while attending a high society event. In this type of story, the dangers are not always HP loss. And "the right action" isn't always a fight. But the players need to decide going into events what kind of interaction they want to have. (Fight or Social) And what kind of trade offs they want to make.



The flip side is the more cinematic world where your dressed in a full tux, a fight breaks out, and you tear off your tux revealing full plate beneath and the PC promptly draws their Buster Sword from whoknowswhere.



Neither story type is "Best". It all depends on what kind of play style you and your players enjoy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    5 hours ago


















0












$begingroup$

Personally, I tend to lean towards the PC/NPC interactions, and that means dealing with the social cost of carrying your shield up and ready for combat while wandering around the tavern, or if they have a shield on them at all while attending a high society event. In this type of story, the dangers are not always HP loss. And "the right action" isn't always a fight. But the players need to decide going into events what kind of interaction they want to have. (Fight or Social) And what kind of trade offs they want to make.



The flip side is the more cinematic world where your dressed in a full tux, a fight breaks out, and you tear off your tux revealing full plate beneath and the PC promptly draws their Buster Sword from whoknowswhere.



Neither story type is "Best". It all depends on what kind of play style you and your players enjoy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    5 hours ago
















0












0








0





$begingroup$

Personally, I tend to lean towards the PC/NPC interactions, and that means dealing with the social cost of carrying your shield up and ready for combat while wandering around the tavern, or if they have a shield on them at all while attending a high society event. In this type of story, the dangers are not always HP loss. And "the right action" isn't always a fight. But the players need to decide going into events what kind of interaction they want to have. (Fight or Social) And what kind of trade offs they want to make.



The flip side is the more cinematic world where your dressed in a full tux, a fight breaks out, and you tear off your tux revealing full plate beneath and the PC promptly draws their Buster Sword from whoknowswhere.



Neither story type is "Best". It all depends on what kind of play style you and your players enjoy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Personally, I tend to lean towards the PC/NPC interactions, and that means dealing with the social cost of carrying your shield up and ready for combat while wandering around the tavern, or if they have a shield on them at all while attending a high society event. In this type of story, the dangers are not always HP loss. And "the right action" isn't always a fight. But the players need to decide going into events what kind of interaction they want to have. (Fight or Social) And what kind of trade offs they want to make.



The flip side is the more cinematic world where your dressed in a full tux, a fight breaks out, and you tear off your tux revealing full plate beneath and the PC promptly draws their Buster Sword from whoknowswhere.



Neither story type is "Best". It all depends on what kind of play style you and your players enjoy.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









Corbin MathesonCorbin Matheson

31112




31112












  • $begingroup$
    While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    5 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
    $endgroup$
    – Corbin Matheson
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
    $endgroup$
    – V2Blast
    5 hours ago


















$begingroup$
While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
While you might run it that way, it doesn't seem like this addresses OP's actual question: any unintended consequences of implementing their houserule to allow equipping a shield using one's free object interaction in the first round of combat.
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
@V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
$endgroup$
– Corbin Matheson
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@V2Blast, nesbitto said it better then I. The unintended consequences are it changes the nature of the story. Instead of heaving to weigh the costs of always being fully combat capable vs social downsides, the houserule allows you to have both.
$endgroup$
– Corbin Matheson
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
5 hours ago






$begingroup$
You should edit your answer to state that explicitly! :)
$endgroup$
– V2Blast
5 hours ago












svenema is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










draft saved

draft discarded


















svenema is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













svenema is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












svenema is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142300%2fare-there-any-outlying-considerations-if-i-treat-donning-a-shield-as-an-object-i%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown