Normally I don’t pick on innocent house rules that haven’t ever done anything to me but some blog I can’t find anymore claimed that if shields aren’t splintered in 5e that will be proof that WotC wasn’t looking at the blogs because pretty much the whole OSR uses it. That’s just a tiny bit too much praise for a rule I think is broken and exploitable.
Before we get rolling, just in case you weren’t already aware, the rule comes from here and is phrased thusly:
“With my houserule, you get the usual -1 to your AC with a shield. However, any time you take damage, you can opt instead to say your shield absorbed the force of the blow. The shield is shattered and must be discarded, but you don’t take any damage from that hit. It’s quick, it’s easy, and it’s valuable.”
If you have a first level fighter, the odds are 50/50 that you have HP somewhere in the 1 to 4 range with other classes having even less than that. The point is: if you have 1d8 or 1d6 HP splintering a shield is a life saver and that makes it a game changer.
Firstly, it makes 1st level combat much more survivable. That’s fine as long as that’s the DM’s intent: a feature and not a bug. Personally, I like the lethalness of low level D&D but to each his own. Not a huge issue.
The issue is it’s potential to warp fighter and cleric behavior. It’s effective enough that it makes it insane not to use a shield and have a stack of backups nearby, even if you have to hire someone (or a donkey) just to carry them around.
That’s not too bad because you can still only use one per combat, right? Right?
Now imagine you’re DM and I’m a smartass PC and I tell you I want to… dual wield shields. Are we ready to do this? How would most DMs handle that and for that matter how would I? Here’s a couple guesses:
-minus 1 AC per shield
-d6 damage for a shield bash. (Same as a flail or mace rather than the d4 of a club. Did you see shield bashing on Deadliest Warrior? It was pretty brutal.)
-possibly even getting an attack with each shield! Depending on the dual wielding rules being used of course.
-a penalty to-hit is likely but if it’s too harsh it’ll discourage shield bashing in other contexts.
What happens then when the smartass PCs decide they want to try to squeeze some more damage from their shields and start sharpening the edges or attaching blades and spikes? On one hand a game where fighters duel wield crazy spiky shields does sound like a lot of wacky fun… but on the other hand The Colonel from Monty Python is in danger of busting through the walls and putting an end to all this silliness.
Metal shields don’t splinter anyway, wooden ones do. Wooden shields are cheap, but metal ones wont cop out when there’s heat all about. How does that translate into Shall Be Splintered rules? Wait, found some good ideas about this buried in the comments:
“Metal shields are indestructible, but if you block a blow your shield arm is injured and useless. Either way you lose the shield for the rest of the fight. … Option: If you don’t like arm injuries, you could let the shield be torn from the character’s arm instead. Or you could make it a 50/50% chance for injury or loss. … Wooden shields are great because they are cheap and protect your arms. Metal shields are great because you can re-use them and don’t have to carry spares.”
I think that’s more realistic but doubt many are bothering to use these. A good chuck of this rule’s appeal is it’s simplicity. Is the Labyrinth Lord shield metal or wood? I’m thinking that at 10 gold it’d better be metal. Soo…introduce cheap wooden shields that splinter and metal shields get dinged and Arms Shall be Bruised. Doesn’t have the same ring does it? It loses some of the drama.
A lot of people seem to be getting hung up on how to handle magical shields. If metal shields are indestructible there’s no problem. If you have a magical wooden shield you now have a magical pile of toothpicks. Seems fair. Who enchants a cheap wooden shield? The Lady of the Lake doesn’t hand out crappy wooden swords, she hands out the fancy stuff.
There’s a less popular version of SSBS that requires a saving throw. This costs some simplicity but I think it’s an improvement. Being weaker and less consistent it’ll have less impact on low level play.
I guess any rule will collapse if you look at it under a microscope. I’m starting to warm to it a little actually, as long as caution is used because it tinkers with combat in a fundamental way. Just be prepared for someone to try dual wielding shields in your campaign. I know I would.
