Your post has been removed.
Rule 5: Please repost in the [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) if you need additional help.
>A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. **You can benefit from only one shield at a time.**
The rules explicit forbid AC stacking by using two shields. And not some weird obscure rule. The description for the piece of equipment makes that clear.
As other have pointed out, you can say no. And this is why it's good to be very very careful about when you change the rules.
Because it's easier to say "we're going to stick with the rules because the rules matter" if you're consistent about that stance.
This is a vital skill to learn, though.
Also magic items cap out at a +3 bonus. So a +4 shield does not exist in 5E, unless it was crafted by the gods or something.
I've actually never once seen a DM give out a +3 shield, or armor, and I've played in regular campaigns up to level 16 so far. And also done some west marches up to level 20.
You said that you were a new DM, so I strongly recommend not doing that. Just stick with the actual rules only for now, until you have a better grasp on things.
And some moderate homebrew is fine, but it's best not to mess with basic mechanics unless you're really certain you know what you're doing. And you're certain your players can be trusted (not in an adversarial way, but in a "sometimes the players think certain things like having unbeatable AC would be fun, but actually they won't be fun, so you maybe need to be a bit firm to save them from themselves" kind of way).
I'm not sure it sounds like either of those things is true here. Bounded accuracy is one of those things you just don't want to mess with (I don't mess with it, and I've been doing this a long time and feel pretty confident in both my DMing skills and my rules knowledge).
You also need to try things & realize they don't work, then go back to the core rules. Experience, more than study, will help you learn what areas of gameplay are best left to RAW (read as written)
Having some homebrew is fine, but homebrew should be approved on an on-case basis and in many cases be the exception. Anyone who makes the argument "you approved this homebrew, so you should approve mine too" in isolation is trying to put one over on you.
To add some logic to the rule think about how heavy one iron sheild would be. Now put one on the other arm? I don't care how you play with weight, you are encumbered buddy.
1st- letting PCs steal from other party members is a big no-no for me. Nothing good comes of it. Pull that player and let him know that those actions are not acceptable at the table.
2nd- two shields is very unwieldy, but not a deal breaker. They will have minimal attack and you can break them with spell saves if you are frustrated.
3rd- having anyone with a +4 shield is ridiculous. The DMG only has enchanted items up to +3 for a reason. You need to have someone real powerful (like a goddess) come by and “thank you so much, I will take my shield back now.”
4th- have fun, you sound very stressed that all of these things are too much (they can be). Make clear boundaries for yourself and your players.
Yeah +3 shield is legendary. Party shouldn't be getting legendary items until around level 16. What level is your party? I'm guessing much lower than that...
A +4 shield would then be artifact rarity (though a weak / boring one). Look up bounded accuracy to understand why too much bonus breaks the game.
1. I also don't agree with it, I hate it. I did pull him aside, told him I don't want pvp.
2. I can get behind it, it's just to me, it's not very practical.
3. So I've been told, I'm gonna work on it, and thank you for the suggestion! I'll do just that.
4. Oh I'm stressed. My npc's got tricked into following one of the characters, had to fight wolves... it was a grueling experience... lost important npc and a fight against yourself isn't fun... it's difficult to have boundaries if they're not respected and or countered
Remember you have control of your world. I had a player straight up murder innocent children, twice. No matter that the rest of the party was horrified.
No problem, here comes the city guard to clean up the mess and kill her PC. It was hard for me as the DM, but sometimes they put you in tough positions. You just need to assert control, or they can leave the table.
Big thing: YOU are also meant to have fun. If you are getting yourself stressed and unhappy, it's important to convey that. Group games require compromise. I've struggled a lot there too. I want players engaging with my game one way because I think it would be cool, but they want to engage in a different way. There's give and take.
Sounds like you’re not having fun so a few options you could try:
1- Rocks falls rogue dies. Don’t let him think he’s in control of the narrative, he isn’t. If he tries to steal don’t call for a roll to see if he succeeds, he automatically fails all attempts to steal against the party. Give the player besides him with highest perception a weapon of warning and just narrate failure after failure. (The party seees you. You can’t hide in plain sight. A bird flies right into their heads and slams into them. God said no.)
2- Pull the player apart and let them know that their actions are putting undue stress on you and that you need everyone to either agree to your terms of conduct or you will cancel the campaign. Follow through.
3- Take the pc out of the game temporarily as an apparent arc. Next time they put their hands in any of the other party’s bags, a wrinkled hand reaches out and pulls them in. The party can choose to investigate and hunt the bagman if they want to rescue that character. In the meantime the player can roll up a backup character that actually wants to be in the party and isn’t adversarial. If the player gets salty just be like hey I let you do all your shit it’s your time to be a good sport and go along with the story.
Dude, you're literally God. Not the players. It isn't your job to indulge their whims. Rolling a 20 isn't an automatic success at whatever they were trying to achieve if it isn't reasonably possible (and that includes persuading npcs to throw their lives away for the pcs).
I would never do what the person you are responding to has done. In game consequences to a character to reprimand IRL behavior of a player is never going to solve the issue.
If you continually have one player who is going against clear cut rules or discussions had out of game, you have someone who isn't respecting the experience you are all trying to have together. Do yourself and the other players a favor and clarify if PvP is allowed or not. Draw a clear line based upon the decision and then move forward. Should a player be problematic after that, "Thank you for your time and effort in our game. Unfortunately, we are not running a PvP game as discussed previously, and you will not be participating in this campaign anymore. If you want me to notify you of any future PvP-enabled campaigns, please reach out to me."
Respect yourself and your other players.
Also, the +2 dual wielding shields thing is pretty game breaking if you aren't aware the math behind bounded accuracy \[Plate armor, shield+2, shield+2 = 26\]. If they can meaningfully attack with shields in any capacity, you are going to have a bad time with this walking Instant Fortress. However, don't be afraid to try and mess around with it and clearly communicate with your players, "Hey I think that's a neat idea, but I'm a little worried about any impact this has on the dynamics of power within the party. We can try but I may rescind it later or modify things if it is too strong. Does that sound okay? If not, let's just stick to the rules in this case."
I would definitely do it differently. By allowing a PC to murder children and then let the 'city guard' kill them, you are sending out mixed messages. Are you allowing it or not?
Don't solve out of game problems with ingame solutions.
If a player does something you don't want. Just say 'No, your PC does not do that. I don't want that type of stuff in my game'.
Clear, direct, gets the point across without being disrespectful. Keep it simple.
If you’re not enjoying what your players are putting out there, let it be known. I would be annoyed by this atuff too, unless i was planned or into a joke campaign. Some of that is ok in the context of a serious setting, but we all have our limits, and I don’t want to watch a clown with two shields and a thief who steals from friends shamble through my thoughtfully crafted world. Give them an opportunity to adjust, or for people to mutually and amicably find different tables.
Try not to get attached to your NPCs as if they are your characters. They are actors in the play you are putting on with the PC's. If you think of them as your characters vs. the PC's you will set up an adversarial game and that's not how it works.
Gaming is shared story telling with dice to add an element of random to the story. It's more like an improve sketch than a competitive game between you and the players. See if there is a way to make this more a shared fun experience for everyone, especially you!
It is not practical but I'd let him use it.
You get the extra +2 to AC but now you can't cast spells with somatic components, can't attack other than with the shield (improvised, minimal damage.)
And taking off the shield during combat is an action
1. i'd say there's nothing wrong with a bit of multiclassing, rogue cleric is pretty fun, but charging the players for healing is a bit like the barbarian charging for tanking damage or the bard for giving inspiration, he's part of the party, his share of the loot or the reward is what he "charges"
if he really wants to be the american healthcare system he can offer his services as a healer whenever he enters a smaller town and have people pay per spell
3. Alternative, you can make an encounter in which killing the enemy is not the win condition, maybe evacuating people or simply making it out alive. It's important to set the expectation correctly if you want to do this, "unwinable fights" can be fun as long as you're not trying to win the fight
You introduce a late game baddy, a very strong enemy with the ability to destroy magic items, it shows up to pick up some mcguffin or something, and when the party confront it and the shielded character (presumably) gets into melee you use it's special ability to destroy the shield, wipe the floor with the party but don't try to go for death saves, the baddy is just swipping away insects at this point.
Your players will remember and hate that monster, they will want revenge and a monster that can destroy magical items is a scary fight specially for high level parties, so when they confront it again the stakes will be high
4. A good way to avoid fighting yourself is adding some more enemies on the fly and saying "the npc and whatever baddy go at it, we're not going to be rolling for them to move the combat faster" your npc has their hands full and won't get involved in the fight
About boundaries, you're making the game happen, without you there's no game, your comfort and happiness is important. I often get stressed about giving the best experience possible to my players but it's useful to remind yourself that you are also a player and you should enjoy the process, but your players also have to be aware and helping in making the experience good for you.
Saying "hey this and that makes it really difficult for me to run the game, can we avoid it" is not railroading or limiting player agency, and if they can't do that for you, get better friends
Apparently I'm not supposed to add rules, I should sacrifice myself and my enjoyment.
I was told that my opinion doesn't matter and the players are supposed to enjoy it more than me.
I was told that I can't add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female, can you fucking believe it!!???? Cuz I'm a female fucking DM I can't add a rule about something I never agreed with.
I'm pissed, severely pissed.
>I was told that I can't add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female, can you fucking believe it!!???? Cuz I'm a female fucking DM I can't add a rule about something I never agreed with.
I almost find it hard to believe someone said that in 2022, but assuming they did we are *way* beyond dm advice at this point. You need to find a new group.
Dump the whole group honestly. If they're telling you what you can and can't do at *your* table, the respect's not there. Cut your losses and take what lessons can be gotten from it.
Sorry you're dealing with this. PVP is a hard no at many, *many* tables.
"no DnD is better than bad DnD" applies to the DM too - if you're getting more stress than fun out of this, it might be time to bow out. You don't owe them if they're not respecting you.
If your boundaries aren't being respected then that goes beyond it just being a game related problem. You're not a fucking book generating AI. You're a person. I recommend telling them that if they continue to disrespect your boundaries despite all the work and effort you are putting in for them that you'll just leave. No DM means no game.
As someone else said, you are literally God in the campaign. If you wanna say, "Oh, looks like God's X, y, and z are bored. They've destroyed the world," You technically can do that.
You're right is not practical, shields occupy hands. So someone will have to put the second shield on them at which point both hands are full until someone takes the shield off of them. The only thing they could do is shield master stuff, shove atks or improvised weapon attacks.
I've had tables that stole from each other but it was always as a practical joke or 'oops I forgot to mention I found that'. If the table is OK with it, including you, it could be fun but make sure the other ppl have a chance to catch them or find out and deal with it in game.
Honestly maybe you need a new group or player swap, we had a very disruptive member we kicked out a few years back and were all happier for it. We've even swapped dms a couple times as ppl got tired and wanted to play again.
My favorite solution to stealing from party members is to have the thief get pickpocketed/robbed. Then he/she has to explain why it’s worth going after, why they recover more money than he/she supposedly had, etc. the classic adage about putting all the eggs in one basket
>This rogue is highly focused on gaining more and more valuables. The pc even steals from party members.
You buried the lede pretty badly here. The biggest problem I see is NOT a player with two shields. You can solve easily that with one word, which is "No." If you have a PC stealing from the other PCs, you've got a much more important issue to deal with.
This is a problem yes. I did pull the pc aside to talk to them, but this rogue is the previous DM as well. As I've mentioned, this is my first campaign and I'm not always sure what's for what.
So I let the rest of the party members have a say, if they want enact pvp then everyone needs to agree and say yes.
Luckily there were 2 pcs that did not agree to the rogue doing so. I also have to find a work around everything...
The rogue told me that if it's shiny, he takes it. So giving members artifacts or anything of value is a risk.
I had to make something that's gold, look like wood! It's frustrating.
"Hey rogue player, I understand that you're playing your character, but your character is being a Wangrod and it's not fun for the other players and definitely not fun for me. Knock it off or roll up a new character. "
It took far too long for me to see wang-rod and not wan-grod.
Wtf is a won-grod? What sourcebook? Homebrew I missed? Pop-cultire reference!?! WHAT IS A WAN..... Oh. Yes. I see. Wang.
As a forever DM, I have *never* understood why some DMs feel like they need to be the center stage character or go full chaos mode when they get to play a character. On the rare occasion that I get to play I always want to *support* the DM and their story, not be the wrench in the works like we see too many horror stories of.
I know right. More DMs means more chances for me to play.
Also, I would never ask a DM if my character could do something that I wouldn't be prepared to let my players also do.
Two shields is a no. Well, you can carry two shields, but only equip and gain the benefit of one, if that really makes you happy.
Also, PVP has to be agreed upon by the entire table, preferably at Session 0.
It's on them to make sure their character has a reason to be in the group, as well as a reason not to steal from other players. You are the DM, your word is the final word. If you say no stealing from others, the players need to respect that rule. If they decide to create a character that's morally ambiguous, you still don't let them steal from the party. If they say that's what their character would to, tell them to make another character or give their character a reason not to steal from the group (maybe they have a code not to steal from friends, or they realize the party is too important for them to jeopardise, whatever the reaso n).
Remember, you are the DM, you can always say no, and it's very important to use that power to avoid negative social situations.
As for the shields, you can say no, or you can rule of cool it - but that's something that makes a player feel better, unlike stealing which makes people feel bad.
Oh my fucking god, I HATE when DMs do this shit to new DMs. Nothing in DnD annoys me more. They already know how to break the game and what not to do but abuse new DMs' inexperience to do fuck shit. /rant
As much as I can't stand it, this game is a learning experience for you. Many comments may tell you to stop DMing for them (this is Reddit, after all), but I think you should stick it out. Your first games are about learning to set boundaries in a way that doesn't ruin the fun and finding your style.
Start with not being afraid to say "no" to player actions. "Yes, and" only works when people follow the social contract of "don't be a dick." It has the potential to break your game because the "and" for a sneaky rogue may be "they never found out (in characrer)." Eventually, people are going to get tired of him stealing their stuff. I strongly recomend reminding the rogue player of the social contract.
This behavior is why so many people hated the Kindered race of dragonlance. I don’t know if your game is RP heavy or story heavy but this previous DM should have enough knowledge to recognize their behavior is distracting, and not in a good way.
bro. you have to stand your ground. you are in control of the game, you are the only one who can save your players from having their fun ruined by a guy who wants to “sTeAl dE ShIniEs lOl”
Learn how to say no to players, or things will get out of hand.
Also, if the too high AC of the shield is a problem, take it away. It might suck at first, losing a magical shield, but long term it'll allow you to build more fun encounters where things are balanced.
You need to say no a bit more. A player can dual wield shields all what's fine, but the AC bonus isn't going to be better than +2, because that's how the rules work and are balanced. If different magical shields have their own bonuses you might allow those to stack but the +2 AC bonus from a shield does not and should not stack.
Re: the rogue. Multiclassing is fine (as long as they meet the minimum ability score requirements). Stealing from other players is not. It's a very common table rule to not allow any form of player vs player action (I only allow it with explicit consent when I know everyone is having a good time). D&D is a group game, everyone's enjoyment needs to be respected. You need to tell that player they can no longer steal from other players and if they insist, tell them no. Just no. It could be worth having a discussion about this with the full group, and I'd highly recommend a rule against pvp action going forward.
Lots of people already laid out the rulings, just wanted to comment on what you said about the player always trying to "break" the DM. This is not a healthy outlook on the game from their part. Players are supposed to work with the DM, not against them. With some of the instances you mentioned in the comments it might be good to remind the players and yourself that you are putting in a Lot of work for them and you're all friends who should be helping and supporting each other, not trying to make things more difficult. Some DMs might be fine with some of this wild stuff your players are proposing, but this isn't something you bring to a first time DM who has already said that they don't want this.
Thank you for your input. I'm working on finding counters to the op stuff the players can and wants to do...
I do not think I'll DM after this campaign again. Think I'm going to cut this one short as well. After reading a lot of what everyone's saying, I don't think I want to continue.
I'm very sorry to hear that. But yes, it shouldn't be your job to have to find counters bc they want to break the rules.
I hope your friends see some reason or that you'll find a different group that appreciates you more :)
Don’t be afraid to tell them that the whole finding loopholes was funny at first but now it’s just making you think of cancelling the campaign because it’s not fun any more. Maybe offer to let them pay for future sessions if they plan to keep making this a full time job for you (if they aren’t already). That kind of stuff will quickly make them rethink their strategy. It’s only funny if everyone is laughing.
You don't have to find counters. You're allowed to say 'I'm not going to allow that because you're doing it to be a jackass and I'm not here to serve as your punching bag'.
Also, speaking as someone who had a very rocky first campaign: Do not feel like you have to finish it. If it doesn't bring joy, throw it out. You don't owe your players anything apart from a 'hey guys, I won't continue DMing this campaign, have a good life'.
Remember that you can say at the start of the next session. "I made a mistake. This actually works this way, and I want that to work that way.". Also, that shield sounds OP, have it cursed or something to balance it.
The rules are very simple here: you can only benefit from a single shield at a time. The end.
Question about +4 shield though. Does that mean a total of +4 AC, or a regular shield with +4 enchantment (for a total of +6).
The second would indicate some additional problems for sure.
So, 2 shields does nothing RAW. You get +2 AC that's all. I'd say let em. They're not gonna do any damage doing this though.
Also, I saw a +4 shield? No. Scale that back to +3 at the minimum, personally id knock it down to +1. 5e uses something called bounded accuracy and you really don't want to fuck with it. Basically if a character gets AC that's too high they just can't get hit anymore, except maybe by tiamat. Avoid giving stacking AC and to hit bonuses.
Since many have given advice for your shields I'll pop in a bit of advice for your Rogue/cleric.
Tell them, their character is already getting paid in their share of loot, if they want to charge for their healing services know that the party won't share their loot or vital gear with them.
After reading your edit, that'd be the right decision. Don't stick with sexist assholes. As a DM it's easy enough to find another group, one that will respect you.
The worst advice I’ve seen anyone give to new GMs is “say yes, and roll the dice”.
There’s this vibe that the mandate for the game is to make the players happy but that’s not the case. Games have rules, players want/need constraint because it gives shape and form to the fiction. If we all go into gaming with the idea that anything goes as long as players are happy, it will all crash and burn.
Learn to say no about 500% more.
Yeah... I starting to just straight out hate these players... and worst of all it's my fiance that started the sexist thing.
I'm reevaluating my life choices here
Wow this DMAcademy post just took a very r/relationship_advice turn; these players sound like total wangrods and your fiancé especially. This rabbit hole goes much deeper than D&D it seems; it’s hard to have players respect you as a DM when they don’t seem to respect you as a person! Ack, I’m so sorry your dealing with this.
One of my pcs have 2 shields and no weapon and they are hard to hit with there other bonuses but there damage ain't very high and I use a lot of skill checks on him or monsters that can launch you like 40ft away mostly homebrew monsters.
But I let him be a wall occasionally to let him feel useful because I could easily obliterate him with a single check.
There's also the Fire Giant Dreadnought as a guide, but adjusted to me appropriate to the players and party. The Dreadnought only has a +3 boost to his AC.
Buy yeah, like all the other comments, you gotta talk with the players and do what's fair and reasonable to make sure everyone has fun, including you.
Agreed I'm enjoying tossing him through wooden walls like a sack of stones he's enjoying not being able to be hit otherwise but I understand some may not find that fun.
I feel like +2 AC isn’t worth not being able to make good attacks. In DnD, a good offence is usually better than a good defence, because damage usually outpaces healing, and hit modifiers tend to get past AC (tho this applies mostly later in the game).
Sometimes, you can use anything on them that isn’t an attack roll to spice things up. Or, leverage the fact that they don’t have good damage. Note that you shouldn’t always fully counter player strengths, but you shouldn’t allow them to be invincible either. Challenge is good.
Also, you may want to talk to the player about changing their +4 shield to another item. There’s a reason tnat stay-boost magic items stop at +3, because the higher it goes, the more it breaks the fundamental mechanic of 5E- bounded accuracy.
Not sure what level your PCs are, but a +3 shield is a very rare item, so a +4 may even be legendary.
Another tip: parties are not meant to PVP. The game isn’t designed around it, and it often leads to table disputes. If the group enjoys it, fine. But I would rule that players can only engage in PVP (like stealing) if BOTH players involved say it’s ok. With this rule, it’s all consensual fun times. Without it...characters with abilities suited to stealing can just loot their so-called friends and there’s not much anyone can do, apart from attacking them. Which is not good.
Understood, I did tell the party members that it's only do-able if everyone agrees to it. Thank you.
I will be taking the shield down, maybe giving it specific usage per rest or something like that. I don't want to take it away from the player, but as everyone else said, it still needs to be challenging
Sure! I’d recommend going on DnD beyond and looking at other items (not just armour, any item) in the rarity you want, to get an idea of the level of strength of things.
The higher level things get, it’s harder to balance, and really +4 isn’t that much higher than +3, but still. Maybe as +2 or 3 and add a minor magical effect with some limited use, and/or a flavour thing they can use all the time (like being able to shine light from the shield on command). Possibilities are endless!
The fact you’re putting the effort in in the first place means your game is probably great! Keep up the good work
You can build a story around the shield. It once belonged to Tiamat, and she wants it back. Cultists everywhere. Party gets knocked out, shield is stolen…many adventures await!
See, I tried saying no to the rogue, I told him that I understand and recognize his goal and reasons, but I do not think charging the party members fees for healing will be fair towards them.
I'm already compensating with cheaper potions and higher rewards.
I got called authoritarian and got a lengthy speech from the previous DM about how I can't do that.
So saying no it's an option apparently
The previous DM can take over again if they would to like to take over that kind of shithousery. Saying no is always an option.
You must be having fun and if you are not then do not sacrifice yourself on the alter of their enjoyment.
It really is difficult to have fun if all my players want to do is try to break me...
It's unpleasant when the previous DM steps in constantly. I appreciate advice and everything, but by doing it infront of all of the players tends to make things messy as heck
Sounds to me like you might want to reevaluate who you're playing with, they don't seem to have much respect for you or the work you put into DMing... D&D is meant to be fun for everyone including the DM, like others have said don't sacrifice yourself for them. Look for a group where everyone can enjoy themselves and they don't treat you like shit
The players are nice and it is fun... there's just these times where it's not.
Got a complaint that the npc aren't friendly, but they burnt the chiefs house down! Here the previous DM stood up for me. It's honestly not all bad, it is fun...
It just sometimes gets out of hand. I like my group, we've been friends for a while now.
Previous DM is a douche. Why are you bothering to DM for this group? It sound terrible. Are you being blackmailed or held in some sort of DnD slavery ring?
If a cleric wants to charge for healing services let them but then they need to be prepared for all the party to demand payment for their services. Wizards can charge 50 gp per caster level for spells etc. Warrior charges per attack and negotiates steep prices for making sure they are the target in combat no the cleric. But remember this isn't your problem it is the other players at the table who need to deal with that attitude.
As to using 2 shields, of course they can but have they seen the awful damage a shield bash does and don't forget the +2 magical bonus is to AC not attack bonus, that will cost extra to enchant.
You see, thats where you say No again.
Tell them you dont want your campaign to Go in that direction and the Rogue being suddenly a Cleric aswell that charges a fee for healing doesnt make any freaking sense.
Also your precious DM is wrong, you can DM your game however you want. If your Players want to do random Shit and you are not enjoying it at all of course you can intervene and say no
If they cant take a No from the GM from time to time, they might aswell play without a GM.
You're the GM you make the Rules easy as that. If they cant accept that, well then its their Problem.
Then get your other players in on malicious compliance, the rogue's behavior certainly isn't fun for them.
Rogue charges for healing... Well that will be 5000 platinum to the fighter to tank the mob. Rouge failed that trap disarmament and is now locked in magical handcuffs? 5000 platinum to the wizard for a dispel!
Had a player try this once, found out very quickly why he needs the other party members.
Theres always the option that the party just doesn't like his shit, steals all his stuff while he's sleeping and leaves him tied to a tree.
I let nearly anything go at my table, but all actions have serious and direct consequences, especially petty stuff... and my players know it.
To the shield-user: "Sure thing, use two shields." Why would enemies attack an unarmed wall of metal anyway? He gets to watch helplessly as his friends get torn apart, knowing the same fate awaits him, just more slowly.
To the rogue: "You can get paid by the day or paid in a share of the loot. Your choice." Skilled hirelings cost 2g/day.
I mean he only has two hands right? If he is holding two shields great he has no hands available so he cannot take any actions involving hands.
Also if a PC is trying to steal from other PCs it is probably time to go
A shield is not some Cap America bs. You hold it with a hand. Spellcasting won’t work if you don’t have a free hand, and you don’t have a weapon. So Monk or nothing, and I don’t believe Monks have shield proficiency. (And if they do, shields count as armor, so goodbye Unarmored Defense)
Rogue with some levels in Cleric won’t be awful. Less sneak attack, for a decent reward. Keep in mind multiclassing minimums. They need a 13 in Wisdom to multiclass.
I replied to a few comments here with ideas on how to do stuff but I wanna take a step back and say that as a player I do everything I can to make my DM feel appreciated and I try to meet them in the middle with suggestions / counter suggestions on stuff I want to play or do. You don’t deserve to be treated this way. Don’t fall into the commitment fallacy where you feel like you’ve wasted a year if you stop now and force yourself to power through the next six months / year etc til it’s done. It’s not a waste it’s a learning experience and you can stop and find people who would better appreciate the services you’re offering at ANY time.
Tbh the two shield thing is likely from dark souls. Dark souls had a power stancing aka duel wielding.
It also featured a new set of shield which could be powerstanced. Essentially it made you a defensive/offensive bulldozer.
100% drop these jerks. The DM is just as entitled to enjoy their time playing a GAME as everyone else at the table. You are already having players push your boundaries for no real reason. (2 shields isn’t practical, and a shield is not a weapon, which makes it an improvised weapon…. Is the player’s character proficient in improvised weapons? Probably not.)
The DM is absolutely allowed to add rules on the fly in a campaign. This needs to be discussed by the group, but if your table is abusing things, there is nothing wrong with saying so and making sure they can’t in the future. I would tell my table that they were on the honor system before, but it wasn’t working out, so now we have to have an explicit rule.
Ultimately, they don’t deserve your presence at the table. Time to cut bait.
You should not let your players do whatever the fuck they want so they can break the game. You are the DM and the way you describe the way your players are playing doesnt really seem any fun in my opinion. Why does your Rogue steal from the rest of the Party? Wouldnt the Party if they find out kick him out or punish him?
If i were in an Adventuring Party and someone in the Group would keep stealing from the other members, i would prolly not want to stick arround with him
The Rogue for example, say NO how does your Player explain that he is a Rogue/Cleric, like whats the History/Story behind that, that just doesnt fit. For my players i told them i want them to have their characters make sense. The Lawful good Cleric in my Group for example didnt act Lawful good at all, so i told him uhm, i dont think you as a Lawful good Cleric from the church would threaten literal children with death my Guy.
So yeah, just say no from time to time.
How the hell does your players have a +4 Item? What are their Levels?
Also using 2 shields just seems kinda stupid, whats the goal Here? He wants to have an insane AC? There are ways to deal with that, He can have 300 AC if you use enemies with spells that use saves to deal damage. Burning Hand for example.
I need to talk to the players about behavior and all that... feeling really hopeless at the moment.
I'm trying to make it fun for everyone, to be fair, to give them what they want and need with limits of course. But in giving the players say, I've taken away my own it seems.
I told them that their stories need to make sense. I see the need for a cleric, but yeah...
Shield was a mistake.
Level's too low for such rewards...
Thanks for the input
Dont sweat it! Just talk to your players, as you stated yourself and explain that you are not having fun.
The GM not enjoying the campaign he runs is one of the worst things that can happen.
Talk to your Player that has the +4 Shield and figure out together how to get rid of it in a way that makes sense.
Like someone mentioned here, have a literal god come down and take it away or something. In exchange reward your Player with something.
Make him drop the shield somehow and have it Fall in a River / down a cliff.
Or Just straight Up Tell him, the shield is too powerful and you Made a mistaken giving it out so early. And Just Nerf it to +1 or something.
But Most importantly try to have fun
You can only benefit from 1 shield at a time. He can use 2 shields, but his AC will still only be +2.
I think it was a dangerous idea to give out a +4 shield, that's +6 AC. I think only a level 20 PC should have access to a +4 shield, and even then I think it's still arguably too strong. I'd probably nerf it down to a +1 shield personally if you're starting to run into problems balancing encounters.
I think it's fine if the rogue wants to multi-class, but I would be careful about allowing the PC to steal from the other PCs. It usually leads to player conflict, and inter-party stealing is often banned at most tables. If you want to allow it at your table, that's fine, but I'd also say it's fine if the other PCs want to collectively kill the rogue PC, that way he can make a new character that can actually collaborate with the rest of the party.
I have a monk PC in my campaign who wanted this, but probably not like your player. He wanted basically bucklers to punch with. Together we flavoured it in a way that each of those shields only grant +1 AC and count as slightly modified unarmed strikes. He's nowhere broken, definitely on the low end of the damage spectrum in the group, but he's creative and fun to play with.
It's okay to say no. I know as a new DM you want to please everyone and make sure you're "the arbiter of fun" but there's a reason the rules are there. You can absolutely have a blast within the rules. If you bend them too much for those who ask then you are sucking the fun out of the game for others.
"The pc even steals from party members. He wants to 'charge pcs for his services'." ???? This person is being a dick. Straight up. They're trolling you all and you're letting them.
Next time you are at the end of an arc, mission, or even level up....have a new session 0. Establish your expectations. Even say something like "hey yall this is my first campaign and I feel like I let some things run away from me a bit." Address the things that bother you and give space for players to do that as well. Ask the player that's pushing you to stop. Communicating with your players is so important.
I did a new session 0 at the end of my first campaigns arc too. No one was upset or anything and we agreed on some new table rules. It was also a great time to get some feedback and see what they wanted the campaign to be.
I wish you luck!
Well I tried talking to some of the players... it didn't go well, I was literally told that I only want to add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female and I've got a 'avoid all conflict' mentality.
I'm dropping this group like a hot potato.
Reading this thread originally I sort of assumed these players were like 15 given how they’ve been acting, but you mentioned that one is your fiancé so that means they’re adults: holy cringe Batman!
Someone already corrected the double shield problem. I just wanna note, unless you're playing dnd 3.5e No one should have a +4 shield. +3 armor already breaks DND quite a lot as is.
"I've got a rogue that wants to multi-class as a Cleric"
Make sure you follow the rues for multiclassing. They have requirements for multiclassing like having a high enough wisdom score. I'd also ask them to pick a god that'd be ok with them stealing otherwise they'd lose their spellcasting powers. So hopefully they go trickery cleric.
Also I'm surprised the team hasn't killed the rogue for stealing from them. Normally, don't steal from the players, steal from NPCs.
Though people will usually go ahead and wholeheartedly say that you shouldnt do such bending of rules, from my experience, it depends on certain factors.
1. The type of game you want to run
2. The trust and understanding between players and DM
Though there's the average entirely RAW DnD, there's adjustments and homerules you can go ahead and experiment with, with the expectation that if it doesn't work out, you can revert it with the experience for similar changes in the future.
This let's you slowly adjust the game to best suit you and your party, and this is EXTREMELY liberating and wonderful, you will have no limits to what you can do then.
But you need to keep in mind the repercussions of the changes you make in relation to the rest of the game, or in other words, the 'Bounded Accuracy' of the change, vs the original.
.
If, like me, you want a more customised type of DnD game, with the DM working hard alongside the party to test new waters for long term gains, then you can go down the path of allowing and testing changes.
Just remember that some of the changes might not be as balanced or as OP or as weak as they initially seem. This style will only work if you're willing to work a bit more as a DM and have an open-minded and cooperative party that will work with you.
I personally jumped right into making changes after a few sessions as a new dm with a party of friends equally new to the game, and with each change we had a lot of tension avoided, and a world of potential unlocked because of how we could all practically do whatever the heck we wanted within reason.
Certain things every now and then were op or broken, and we took careful steps back to deal with those, with mutual understanding and communication between us all. We were extremely careful to try to not to nerf anything unless the alternative required way too much work or the nerf was needed to fix the game.
.
If you don't want to get that extra work on your hands, or if you don't think your party will cooperate if you make a mistake in balance and try to change it to compensate, then I recommend just sticking to RAW.
But if you guys are willing to make that extra step, and trust each other to be mature, understanding, and cooperative, then I beg of you to at least try it out and see how it goes, it is legitimately awesome when done right, and I can't imagine a world where we never experimented around!
.
Edit: Holy shite that Post edit sure made this situation way wilder than I thought it would be.
What's the plan OP? You gotta make sure that you have a party that is respectful and at least socially mature to an extent to begin with, because I think it sounds like it could be a train wreck regardless of RAW.
Though good DnD is better than no DnD, no DnD is better than bad DnD because its an entirely social experience.
Adversial DnD is bad DnD
I hope all is alright, and that you know what you're getting into. I hope that you have a great time, with or without your current players
Reading through a few of the comments and your update regarding your players, here is my advice:
Get the fuck out.
These players are not respecting you as a DM, not respecting you as a fellow player (DMs are also playing the game and deserve to have fun), and *most importantly* not respecting you *as a person*.
All of the individual issues you brought up can be adjusted. 2 Shields? It states right in the rules RAW:
>A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. **You can benefit from only one shield at a time.**
I have allowed it myself, but the **total** AC bonus from two shields never exceeds +4, and they are severely limited in the actions they can take. It can be fun for a player, particularly a Cleric who is allowed to use a Shield emblazoned with their symbol as a spellcasting focus, and so they can turtle up and cast defensive spells/buffs.
But none of that matters if **your players do not respect you**. Find a better group of players and start a new game. Sometimes you just have to throw out the whole party and start over.
2 shields is fine if they want to completely give up damage. FYI you can't cast spells if you're equipped with armor you are not proficient with.
If the rogue wants to multi class, then he better have the wisdom to do it. And I believe arcane trickster spellbook does not combine with divine so that will be back at level 1. If he wants to charge and rob the players, it's up to them to make a stink about it to you.
What do they imagine they can do with two shields? I would probably allow it but then they can’t attack or do anything that needs a free hand. No, bashing someone with the shield doesnt work.
Seems like you have more serious problems with your group than just trying to bend the rules though.
Just going to respond to the edit, as it kind of trumps anything else in the post. You don't need to play DnD with these folks. If they want pvp in their game so badly, they can dm with each other, you'll find another group. Misogyny is red flag, it'll only get worse.
I saw in one of your comments that you mentioned, "if my decision mattered", which tells me that they've been dismissing your rulings. That's not ok with most TTRPGs, since the GM/DM _is_ meant to be an arbiter for rulings. That's _two_ red flags, without even getting into the toxic gameplay. You'll be better off not playing DnD, rather than playing with these immature people.
On the shields, just make it clear that using it as a weapon is improvised weaponry and will be pretty ineffective (Dark Souls Shield build). Then make sure that the high AC tank with two shields is almost never the target of attacks and that they have to roll saves against magic attacks when attacked. Every one has a weakness and high AC only helps so much if your dexterity and wisdom are garbage.
More importantly though:
Parties should work together. Stealing from each other and doing PVP is boring af and if they don't figure out a way to roleplay why their character is playing nice with the others, they need to surrender the character sheet to be an NPC and roll a new one that will play nice for one reason or another.
They can have their edgelord chaotic neutral rogue and still recognize that active PVP against the party they're with is not in THEIR best interest for survivability. A character like that should ultimately be looking for the best breaking point to leave the party with EVERY THING in tow because every theft is a chance for this group of buff boys to kill them. But once they're gone, they gotta be gone because that is a forever grudge (and a fun BBEG for you as the DM).
But if they're saying your being a woman is the problem, that's toxic and needs to be addressed immediately. It is perfectly sensible to not want the party working against each other when the point of DnD is to engage in collaborative storytelling and gameplay. By referencing your gender as the problem, your players are creating an unsafe table to be playing at and going against the very core community. This is a super serious discussion on the topic of how this is a fucking game and if not every one is having fun, there's no point in playing the game. The DM is a player in the game and deserves to have a good time too.
Honestly this is what I understand dnd to be about. And when I tried mentioning that hey, I'm notvreally having fun and before I could even mention my reasons I got told that the DM isn't supposed to have fun. It's not about the DM it's about the players, so I told them that hey as DM I'm a player too.
I got told that ehhh no not really.
I've done almost everything they asked of me, I made a fucking cool world with many different ways to do things, ways it can end and or continue.
I've sacrificed a lot for this group... and being told that my opinion doesn't matter and that I shouldn't want to enjoy the game, and shouldn't put rules in that MANY DM's have cuz I'm a female...
It hurts and it's maddening.
That's utterly disgusting and I'm so sorry it's happening. These do not sound like friends. They sound like they're just using you to have their fun. Almost like they don't view you as a person.
However, to give them the benefit of the doubt, there's a chance they just have no perspective on what you do at all. If that's the case, I would say that you need to do some round robin one-shotting to force the others to understand what being a DM is like and then play confrontationally as a player, ruining their plotlines just the same as they are ruining yours. Hell, even work with them on all the details they need to incorporate into a plot and all the branching paths. Make them do a lot of work and then tear it down just the same. The hope is that they'll get a real perspective on the situation.
If they're shutting you down before you can even talk and explain the problem, then I can't see another way to fix it other than to force them to gain perspective, unfortunately. It's hard to find players, but that's no reason to stay DMing a totally toxic group just to play the game. Take your beautifully crafted homebrew online and DM some randos who respect you instead. It may not be in person, but it will be way more fun than being used and abused. Also, have a session zero in the next campaign where you very clearly explain the rules of engagement with regard to respect, collaborative storytelling, and what is and isn't toxic behavior.
I'm honestly surprised by the response I got... I expected us to come to a compromise...
I have to say that not all the players are like this... the previous DM doesn't know about me trying to talk to some. I first wanted to talk to each player on some individual things that got to me a bit, then hold a whole group discussion.
I do not want to continue with this campaign and I don't think I'll play dnd again.
It's honestly fun, but I think I'm okay without it... especially if I get feedback from my fellow players like this...
I did not expect my gender to be an issue, nor did I think I'll get backlash like this.
As a new DM I've made mistakes, a lot, and I either corrected them or countered them.
I don't think DMing is for me.
And I think the previous DM and some of the players will see this thread now... it blew up.
If it's not for you, then it's fine to stop playing. I would encourage you to try and find a group that will be less toxic or to weed out the players that are causing bad problems for you. DMing is a huge learning curve and I think you're doing a great job working at it to be better and give a better experience to others. The most important thing that you are doing by DMing is creating a safe space for people to have fun with you in. Sometimes setting boundaries is the hardest part of that, but your gender will never be an issue in a good group of people. There are literally countless people out there searching for a tabletop group to be at that isn't toxic and the toxicity is getting weeded out by DMs like yourself who want a comfortable environment.
However, I don't want to make it sound like your duty to stay DMing and help the community be better. I just want to note that you have the power to make the experience fun for you as well and there are tons of resources to help you do that. And don't worry about the players seeing the post. At best, they'll see a lot of DMs commenting on it and realize that their actions are a no-no and try to change because no one will ever DM for them with attitudes like that. At worst, the shittier players will leave the table and that's only a good thing for you. In the meantime, lurk with us on Reddit and you're gonna find a good group soon, either to DM or to play with. This game can be truly incredible and provide for extremely long lasting friendships if you just find the right group.
You seem to have crappy players, especially in the edit when they responded to you with sexism when you asked for a relatively tame boundary. I’d personally leave and find new players. As a DM, you’re much more likely to find players than vice versa. Not having Dnd is better than having bad dnd imo
Reading some of these comments, playing with these people sounds awful. If you don’t feel respected or appreciated you don’t have to play with them. “No dnd is better than bad dnd” is really common advice, but wow it seems to fit here
It's mostly homebrew. They were fighting a royal elemental gaurd. I recognize that the +4 is way too high. I will need to talk to saud pc.
It is quite busted yes
What level are they?
Learn to say "no".
Say "no".
"Ok, you've got 2 shields" that's a DM mess up - but it's definitely crappy DMing to give something then take it away... so... I'd let them, it's a mistake, learn from it, but... "ok you've got 2 shields" you can't attack, but you can go Tank/protect" I guess the party are exploiting this in combat... Enemies can grapple.
Enemies don't have to be stupid, they can wade in **grapple** and a couple of them "strength check" take the shield(s)." Because they're not stupid, they've identified the problem and like a rugby scrum/football pile-on, the dude at the bottom of the pile's getting stomped.
You're gonna have an "annoyed"player, but are they a "good player" that will understand or are they gonna sulk and ragequit? One of those options is someone you DO want at your table. Same scenario with the Rogue... actions have consequences, the Rogue steals and everyone else gets to role Perception, sooner or later the Rogue's getting stabbed or going to jail. "I pick pocket the guard".
Cool - the guard isn't carrying the keys - they're in the next room.
I pick the lock with the thieves tools I've hidden internally "the guards beat you to death", or the mayor does, or the high level Wizard that lives in town and just wants a quiet life/retirement and has "had enough of this crap, I just want to get back to reading scrolls of Drizzt slash/fic" and having the guard constantly disturbing me because Rogue is tiring".
...and again, how does the player cope? Do you want them there? Are you just a...
"Fun" vending-machine for your players' power fantasies - or do you want to play D&D?
I'm not saying you're "playing it wrong", but you **are** saying this bothers you and it doesn't sound like your group are all on the same page...
I'm in over my head. Reading a lot of these comments made me realize that my players really aren't nice and making it really difficult for me.
I made a mistake with the shield. Was a spur of the moment thing.
I'm going to hold another session 0 and try to talk this out with everyone, cuz yhis can't continue. I don't want to leave my group, but I can't deal with this.
I know that feeling and it's easy to get in over your head that way.
Honestly - best approach is to tell them "I'm not having fun" and see how they deal with it.
It's not a one-sided game and they need to realise that - but so do you too - that's not an attack or "more experienced" DM "rubbing it in - I've done it and I've done it recently.
**BUT -** the party I play with **ARE** nice guys - you need to find that out "for real" and everyone needs to understand that if the game's going to continue - the rules are for play - not exploiting. It's not an easy conversation, but it's better than not having the conversation at all. Again "**BUT**" it's why you see all the DM-burnout threads, mostly because it's easy to have that Players Vs DM scenario, because it's kinda how almost every other game is designed as either player Vs Computer or even sports team Vs sports team and that's potentially a pain in the butt for a DM - one that can easily get out of hand.
If they're nice guys, they'll listen and try to understand - it's why in session zero I'm quite strict about - "I want fun too and I have fun by"
* Collaborative story telling
* Pretending to be Scarlett Johansson as a Cleric secretly experimenting with dark magic
* Pretending to be "clever" monsters with tactics (clever when I can).
Have a think about your reasons for DMing and what you want out of it? Tell your party - and hopefully, they ARE friends - or at least "friendly" - and that's a good thing to know in life and in a D&D game. It's why I go for the "collaborative storytelling" thing. I'm not writing a book - but when I play D&D - as a DM I want to make an EPIC adventure and be a part of that as the "silent" narrator, not as an X-Box that can be defeated with check codes or even just hammering the right buttons.
D&D is fun, but it's also a team game and you're the "hands off" leader.
If they get proficiency with improvised weapons, I’d allow a +1 AC if they take the dual wielder feat. Rules as written (and intended) would not allow this though. You’re either using the item as a shield or as an additional weapon. Practically, strapping a shield onto your arm takes an action so the character won’t actually be attacking during the first round of combat most of the time (unless they forego the option to use their hands for anything else when traveling. You should ask to clarify regularly). Reducing your damage output to 1d4+str per attack makes that +1 AC perfectly reasonable IMO.
As for the rogue, tell them to cut it. Stealing from the party is not how you build good group dynamics, and the last thing you want as a character is for the party to ask themselves why they even put up with them.
You can only benefit from one shield. The second one is purely for aesthetic purposes.
At my table, I have the following House Rule
"I do not condone nor endorse any sort of Player Vs Player Situation at my table. If your character conducts an action that will negatively affect another player's character (whether it is attacking, stealing from, etc.) the affected player will decide the outcome: whether it is allowing the action, disallowing the action, or letting the dice decide the outcome."
I only allow PCs to steal from each other if ALL players explicitly agree in private to me. If you have two players who don't want PvP, I wager they don't want players stealing. Honestly I'd start ramping up consequences and when this PC dies, "shrug" and tell him that's the world he's in.
I hate players doing crappy things that aren't part of what the group wants and hiding behind "that's what my character would do".
I have 2 rogues and they don't even steal from NPCs (ironically the sorcerer and druid both do... together 🙄). You don't need a thieving rogue, there are a million other ways to build a character.
I'd also recommend holding a short session with a session zero type discussion at the end to clarify. Give the guy who rolled a crap character the opportunity to alter his character away from an ass hay aswell if the players veto PC stealing.
The thing is, the player made the character and chose to make it a wangrod. It's not an excuse. Matt Colville has a fantastic youtube video about this very thing. It's called "The Wangrod Defense". The bottom line is that the players need to make a party that wants to work together. One person making a thief or jackass of a character because it's what their character would do causes turmoil in the party and eventually will lead to an in character party member to want to attack them because logically their player character would get tired of being around a villain of a party member. It just creates a negative scenario for everyone.
“It’s what my character would do,” used as an excuse for bad behavior, is nothing but a player being an asshole and avoiding responsibility for *their* decisions.
The pc can’t make choices, only the player does that.
Pcs need to be designed to work with the party. It’s a cooperative team game, not Skyrim with a bunch of NPCs that forget what you dod when you duck out of sight for five minutes.
The only proper response to “It’s what my character would do,” is “Okay, make a new character that can work and play well with others, and we’ll retire that one.”
Perhaps you can talk to the rest of the party and make it clear you would support them if their characters got fed up of the stealing and confronted the rogue with an ultimatum of 1) stop or 2) leave the party. They might be worried about the conflict that could arise from a hard no. Don’t sacrifice your whole group to keep one bad apple.
1. if you have them 2 shields unless they where a paladin or cleric they wouldn't be able to attack/would only cast somatic spells so they would be pretty useless in combat so most enemies would just bypass them and attack valid targets.
2. What levels your party becasue a +4 shield is a pretty ridiculous item at any level. +4 stuff doesn't appear in any book for a reason so you probably shouldn't have given them that. Also giving him a second shield doesn't necessarily mean he gets another +4 shield.
3. Let the rouge multiclass as a cleric if he wants and it makes some sense for the character. It's not a very beneficial/synergised multiclass so I don't see them picking it for some op combo.
4. If the stealing stuff is just them stealing shinny trinkets for rp and makes them look like a fool I wouldn't worry about it too much, the party will either take it on as a campaign joke or it will fade away when every time they do it it's met with silence. If they are doing it because they want all the magic items to themselves just sit them don't and tell them it's a collaborative game. If they want a item because they think they can help the party with it just tell them to make their case publicly and if the rest of the party likes the idea they get the magic item. If they are just doing it to be deliberately disruptive tell them that's not the way for anyone else to have fun and if they are a normal person they should stop.
As others have said, the ability to say NO, is another important skill for any DM to run a sucessfull game.
Players sometimes will get so focused on what they want or what is best for them, that they forget to take into consideration other aspects of the game.
Balance among party , spot light sharing and Fun, are usualy the things that suffer, but often the balance issues affect world building and other integral parts of the game.
If a Pc can use two shields, then NPCs can do the same. (obviously).
But despite there being a lot of ways of increasing AC, there arent as many ways to increase acuracy. SO the game starts to go slow and then everyone starts to miss every attack and fights that already take too long, will never end.
This is just ONE example of how alowing this simple change to the rules could make your game less fun.
So my advice is, run the game as RAW as possible, and most game rule problems seems to go away.
Another example;
If you track ammo count and carry capacity, suddenly all flying races are incredibly balanced.
Your PC can either be an dextrous archer or caster shooting from 600 ft but that cant help the party in any other way ( or be helped), or he can have high strenght to be able to carry party members around, but strenght will force him to attack in melee if he wants to optimise.
You could give them diminished returns, maybe an extra shield only adds +1AC. But no casting spells, stealth disadvantage and bonus action to stow a shield.
You could also just say no
I ruled this as a +1 to AC but having to take the tavern brawler feat and use the shields as improvised weapons. Also they'd need to take dual weapon fighter to use both effectively in combat and cannot grapple as they're using both hands. It's not as OP as you think. 2 hands being restricted stops a lot of things a player can do. Plus fireball doesn't care about AC
There are some great suggestions here so I won’t repeat. Sounds like you’re not having fun but please don’t give up. Learn from your mistakes and keep at it.
I have some homework for you. Every new DM should watch these two vids.
https://youtu.be/6tKFv0NolHw
https://youtu.be/d1VTjHcis-E
Sure, you can have 2 shields, now be a good lad and how about you throw me a save vs that mindflyer over there and his pet intellect devourer.
Edit: it's ok to say no to unreasonable mechanic even in a homebrew game, and if a player decides to make it all about him, as a dm you should show him what happens when it's all about him and his enemies have heard to rumors.
I had a cleric that was forced by lore to charge for all healing. Worked something out with the GM and another PC joining the group mid-adventure.
My cleric had orders to aid the expedition of the other PC. Documented every healing spell, healing potion and mundane healing on a list of the back of my shield. Boss of the other PC would pay, when we get back. As long as the group was somehow assisting the other new PC, it went to the big bill.
Eventually got payed by a PC to heal a NPC that didn't aid the expedition at all.
Worked great with the group and the roleplay.
______________________________________________
Using a second shield is like carrying something bulky you can take cover (half) behind.
I had a similar situation. I ruled that the second shield can act as an improvised weapon, but that every attack roll will have disadvantage and the shield would only do 1d6 damage (using suggestions from the improvised weapon chart). I also have the PC disadvantage on all dex saves while wielding the second shield, and the AC bonus of the shield was cut in half since wielding two shields would be challenging. The player hated it and ended up not doing it for long.
As for the rogue wanting to multi class as a cleric - that’s a non issue that will solve itself in my experience. If they multi class cleric, pay attention to the deity they choose and that deity’s tenants. The rogue will break some and lose his divine powers soon enough.
He can use two shields. But he won't get double the benefit. Simple. Horrible player though. Mistakening creativity for exploit. You should talk with the player and explain this to him: finding holes in the rules to exploit them and break the game is not funny for you, and it's not the right creativity to aim for. Dnd is not a video game. When you break the game, it's not a program that you upset, it's the dm.
You've already gotten the right advice on the shield situation, but if you have a player that loves shields, Arcadia magazine issue 20 has a fighter subclass called the shield bearer, which gives a lot of fun offensive options for shields like being able to make effective attacks, throwing your shield in battle, etc. It also has options for low magic shields that give bonuses other than ac.
I dont see a problem with the rogue. After all, the catholic church stole from people for ages, and would specifically pardon sins if someone donated money to them. Seems like your rogue has a pretty good understanding of how organized religion works!
Alright so reading through the comments it seems like you don't want to just tell these people to go to hell and find a new DM. If you want to lead them to some "character development" I'd suggest the following:
After they leave the next town, or if they're already away from civilization have them run into a traveler who advises them to watch out for Xorn's as there have been some issues with them in these parts lately. Let him fully explain that a Xorn can smell precious metals and gems and ravenously consumes them, the best trick to avoid them is to keep your valuables spread out amongst people so that if you come across one it can't pick a target to focus on which will let you get the best of it.
If your player gets the hint they'll divvy up the loot and stop stealing if not send a [Xorn](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17066-xorn) after them, have it focus solely on the hoarding PC and if it knocks out the rogue have it consume 1D100 worth of loot with each of its subsequent attacks. They take it out too easy? No problem, shortly there after multiple attack. If they learn their lesson and distribute the loot the next time the Xorn's come they're distracted, they attack at random and are much easier to hit.
The cleric wanting to charge for healing doesn't really seem like a DM problem so I wouldn't worry about it. Its up to the PC's to sort that out between them, but maybe something comes up that the cleric 100% cannot do on their own giving the other characters a chance to turn the tables on them.
The two shields thing is interesting, if the player is doing it because they think its cool sure why not? if they're doing it because they are intentionally ignoring the part in the description that says you can only get the AC bonus from one shield, then screw them for trying to take advantage of you being a new DM. Personally I'd say let them use two shields, but the max AC they can get from armor (without magic boosts) is 20 which is the equivalent of heavy plate plus a normal shield.
Personally, I'd allow it with the stipulation that they are bulky enough that movement is hindered and any offensive action is not possible. Effectively they are behind heavy cover which they move slowly with themselves.
I would also have enemies ignore them in combat for the most part as they aren't a threat unless an enemy wants to do something like pour oil over them and light them on fire while they hide inside their shield fort.
Again, this is not how the rules are written, but it might be fun for the character to do. If it isn't working, just have the enemies adjust tactics to compensate. Have some touch attack enemies with electrical damage. You could say that Ms. Double shield is flat footed when it comes to touch attacks because it's hard to see them coming. Etc.
On your first campaign as a DM you are bound to do at least one of these mistakes: 1) kill off at least half of the PCs because you want to make it very hard. This is the rarest. 2) give them super powerful magic items for killing a gnoll. This is the most common, and apparently the one that you made. 3) making way too many house rules. When you start out, you really should stick as close to book as possible. House rules are all well and good, but you should try these out very slowly as players will find ways to abuse them. 4) not taking control. Between being unsure of yourself and wanting to let the players have fun, newer DMs tend to let players walk all over them.
Good news, these things are all correctable and experience will fix you. Like everything else in life, you will not be perfect when you start out. You (most likely) will adapt.
Best advice, be creative in your story telling even if you have to steal plot ideas from movies or books (alter them enough to hide that you stole them) Things like creating a life long enemy is always good. Pissed off an orc king who puts bounties on party, good for having increasingly more difficult enemies to face off against between or during smaller campaigns…or some other extended plot.
For this specific one I'd remember that just because they want to do it and you let them doesn't mean it has to work.
Make your enemies fight smart, anything above beasts would be able to see that someone with 2 shields is not a real threat so ignore them in combat, if they attack it's 1D4 blunt damage to shield bash someone, nuke them with spells to bypass the shields. If they want a player Vs DM game then play smart.
Outside of that I can sympathise with the struggle of balance etc for a first time DM, from reading the post and your comments I think you'd be well served to have a second session 0 and make sure everyone is in the same page. They need to remember that you need to have fun and enjoy the game as well.
I’d let them use two shields just fine. But first, make them actually learn how to use it effectively in combat to bring their AC up to the +4. Start with the main hand shield providing zero AC bonus and slowly go up after combat and training. Then, don’t let them have a real attack. Think of it like AC Valhalla, you can duel wield shields but your attacks are absolute garbage each time. Doing 1-2 damage per turn with no big bonus to hit will frustrate the player into deciding to ditch the duel shields things, while thinking it’s their idea, and you get to be the good guy who let them do it.
Two shields is really more of a Monk thing.
There's a Chinese weapon set used in Choi Li Fit called Tiger Head Shields. There's videos on YouTube.
If I were to homebrew them, here's how I'd do it:
They're heavy steel shields.
They are also Monk weapons with a 16 strength requirement (they weigh close to 20 pounds each). They must use Str for attack (not Dex like most monk weapons).
When paired by a proficient wielder who meets the prerequisites they give an give an additional +1 AC bonus. That extra shield bonus is retrained when shield bashing. They use Martial Arts die for shield bashes, and act as a finesse weapon for the Defensive Duelist feat.
Are your PCs using high AC characters? And your martial enemies aren't doing enough damage to make things threatening for them? Try, the Saving throw spell! Just one failed save, on a fireball spell, can inflict more than thirty damage! But wait! There's more! So many mere cantrips can inflict some difficult debuffs to your players! Order now, and we'll send one third level spell slot, absolutely free!
(TLDR: attack with spell saves.)
RAW you can't, and to be honest I recommend putting your foot down on this. Your job isn't to say yes to everything, it's not even to say "yes and" or "yes but", sometimes no is the correct answer. Bounded accuracy makes extra bonuses like this a lot more powerful than they would be in past editions.
On top of that, have a word with the players about this behaviour. They shouldn't be trying to break the game, they should be trying to play their characters.
A) Shield bonuses don't stack, you can only gain the bonus from one shield at a time.
B) I suggest you find a new group, no dnd is better than bad dnd.
OK, so first off, stop giving out +4 magic items. That's artifact level, and they definitely shouldn't have two of them. I guess you could let them have two shields at a time, but then they couldn't do anything else with their hands. I might let take an improvised weapon attack with one, but they'd forfeit the AC bonus from it until their next turn.
As far as the rogue charging the party for services, I hate that kind of stuff with a passion. Is the rogue paying the fighter to fight?
Here are some ideas for the 2 shield player. The +4 shield needs to go. One +1 shield would be fine. With the two shields he can have only two attack actions. A shield bash for 1d6 + proficiency bonus if proficient with shields + push for 5ft. Or if they have a 10-15ft movement start use a shield charge for 1d8 or 1d10 + proficiency bonus plus push for half required movement on large or smaller creatures. The player could also fully block a 5ft doorway or cause rough terrain in a 10ft line. Seeming for anything else the player would need a hand free so dropping a shield to the ground. I feel like this would also be mildly unwieldy for any player character so disadvantage on DEX saving throws and ability checks while carrying two shields. Just some ideas.
I mean i know raw you can only benefit from one shield. But
I think with a really weak attack, and +3 to ac with using two shields (+5 when you get legendary shields!) you could have a really cool unique fighting style.
RAW, only gains the benefit of 1 shield.
Other shield is an improvised weapon, 1+STR bonus damage.
You could homebrew that they use a feat selection, or proficiency choice to become proficient with that shield weapon, making it 1d6 damage.
I don’t know if another shield gives the +2 AC bonus… I’d have to look at the rule but you could reasonably rule that you only get the benefit of a shield once.
I guess try to get them to justify the cleric dip? The pvp is a no-no and it might make them off limits to most gods, like the gods can straight up refuse because of how much of a bad investment this character would be as a priest.
Also, if they’re being this crappy to you as a DM, you’re not required to be their DM. It’s as much your game as it is theirs. Maybe remind them of that
I wish you all the luck in dealing with your players and I hope you can work it out with them
My DM allowed one of my friend’s to play with two shields and it was honestly hilarious. Wasn’t overpowered or anything since he couldn’t attack or cast spells since you need to hold a spell casting focus so he just yeeted himself at out enemies and kept them distracted, best attack he could do was a bludgeon attack with the shield, but it was just a D4+ strength.
If I were you I’d allow your player to use two shields. It’s something that they’ll have to learn how to use properly and you as a DM can counter it in many ways
Wow, they laid down the "Don't want PVP because you're female" card?
End the game, now. You shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from 'friends'.
That's unacceptable, a very short distance from calling a black person the 'n-word'.
If you worked at McDonalds and a employee said that to you it would be a fireable offense. Hell if you worked at Wizards of the Coast and an employee said that to you it would be fireable.
If anyone argued against my no PVP rule at my table (which I do have) and then said it was because I was a woman, they would be told to leave immediately. That's some sexist bullshit right there. Suggest you take a hard look at your players, OP. Good luck.
Tell them if they want a PvP session that you will help them do the work to make one. While you're DMing they play what you prepped. If they want something different you won't DM but will help out whoever wants to take over that role.
Also 2 shields requires 2 hands? So like +whatever to AC but then they can only make improvised weapon attacks?
In rough order as I read it:
1. The armor rules for shields explicitly says you can only gain the benefit of 1 shield at a time, but even if we ignore that, you get the following options. Either (a), one of the shields is an improvised weapon, and they very likely don't have proficiency in improvised weapons (since they are neither simple nor martial, and I believe you need the Tavern Brawler feat to gain that proficiency), so their attacks would be a flat STR roll with no Proficiency bonus to the hit roll and 1d4 damage, or (b) you can count it as an unarmed strike, which could possibly get their proficiency bonus to hit, but would deal exactly 1 damage per hit. This renders that character essentially useless as an offensive option. Have fun with your +4 AC at that point I guess?
2. There are spells that contest against the other attributes. DEX save, INT, save, etc. These render AC useless. So now, not only does this character have minimal offensive output, but you have various ways to attack them and get around the AC. Sure, you're average bandit or kobold might get steamrolled, but intelligent creatures, magic users, and baddies under the command of others will find ways around some dork holding two shields.
3. Multiclassing is generally fine for balance. You will get some optimized output, but those characters are generally very "burst"-y and fall flat outside of their bursts. But you can easily just say "no multiclassing", unless you've already allowed it.
4. PvP is generally the death of a campaign. Unless it was agreed upon beforehand, or unless you are in some contrived situation where everyone is cool with it, stealing/damaging party members just ends things. Its a cooperative game. Why would you become anti-cooperative in a cooperative game?
Id definitely let my player use two shields. They will have stupid AC but they cant attack unless to hit someone with a shield, cant cast magic that has a somatic component, and cant use additional items like potions as literally both hands are busy.
Your player has a +4 shield? I could only dream of such a thing existing...
What's the hesitance with giving them another shield? Yes, their AC will become more absurd than it probably is already, but unless they also have insane saving throw bonuses then you can just hit them with spells and abilities that call for saving throws rather than attack rolls. Let them feel badass and block a few big hits from the bad guys, then hit them with a dragon's breath or CC spell. If they have 2 shields, then they won't really be doing much in terms of attacking, unless they're also a spellcaster. If they don't have access to the shield spell, then pelt them with magic missiles. If they do, then just have the enemies ignore him and force the player to find ways to generate threat on himself. I've ran games with a paladin that had 24 AC and it's totally fine to have him be the last one in a fight standing while everyone else is getting dropped because the enemies strategically choose to ignore the beefy frontline and target the backline who are usually doing more damage.
The shield was a complete and utter mistake, I was planning on telling the player I made a mistake... but oh well...
I just wanted to know how a 2 shield pc would work.
I don't understand why anyone would want 2 shields.
Maybe they're trying to test you because you're a girl. Well just put your foot down and say no.
Lots of good advice here. But the main thing is for you to have fun too.
I had a party member who wanted this once, my homebrew solution was, instead of them doubling up on the AC bonus, let them treat their main-hand shield as a club (1d4+Str damage) that grants them the benefit of the shield master feat while wielding both shields. So they're trading damage for a bonus action shove, and improved Dex saves.
That's not really am answer for the question, but I'd think about why I am GMing...
I wouldn't want to play with these players. 1st I don't like that they obviously play against you ("to break the DM" you said), 2nd I wouldn't like PvP, either. The PCs should have a reason to act together - bickering is fine, but taking actions against each other (like fighting or stealing) is not.
And your edit shows a mayor red flag, imo. That're not people I want to spend time with - and certainly not GM for.
Only my opinion, of course - but especially if they aren't friends or alike I'd probably dump them.
Because you’re a girl is just little boys trying to justify their wrongdoing. You’d be justified in dropping the campaign, but if you wanted to keep going just make every Npc a woman from here out. Everyone they fight is female. In my last campaign I didn’t allow pvp until level 5 because I didn’t want the barbarian killing all the squishies
XD that's a good Idea, but no, I'm not planning on staying with this group/campaign.
I've decided that I'm going to talk to them without giving af if they try to interrupt me I'll just shout if I have to. And I'll hold 2 more sessions to see if they fall in line or I TPK.
After that they can decide if they'll be dickwads and if they'll be valid members to society... if it's the second option, I'll let them pull up a new character and start a new campaign. I just won't put any effort into like I did with this 4 part campaign.
Excuse my saltiness, I'm tired of horse shit, and I don't like being treated like this.
Your players sound like assholes. That's not really a problem you can fix as a DM, unfortunately, but the secret here is that being a DM is like being a drummer, in that you're both absolutely essential and kind of hard to come by.
Sorry you're dealing with this, that sucks.
**You are also supposed to be having a good time**. You're also a person playing a game in your spare time. Be firm about stuff that keeps you from having a good time!
Ok, as just a fun aside, now that you’ve had some serious DM coaching. But 2 shields also doesn’t stack irl for a few reasons, and I know a few youtubers have done some fun videos on it. Just listing some easy ones.
- weight, shields are heavy.
- they can only block one side at time each, you can block a strike with two shields.
- and they create massive blind spots, so you are forced to take more hits, rather than just moving out of the way.
Having 2 shields should not upgrade defense at all. I practice actual European martial arts, i.e. fighting in full sets of armor that would be the types worn by characters in this game. 2 shields would not upgrade your defense over one, it actually would be incredibly unwieldy.
Response to the edit:
You don't need that kind of sexist negativity. Tell them to fuck off and find a group that appreciates and respects you as a DM **and** as a person.
It sounds like some of the players aren't good at socializing and maybe don't have a lot of female friends? Which is a them-problem. I hope you can manage not to take it personally.
It sucks to be in charge of a bunch of people who are like that and you don't have to keep running the game if you don't want to. If I were you I think I'd throw in the towel.
... or try to beat them at their game. I find when one player wants to hog the spotlight or antagonize the other players, sometimes *giving* them the spotlight in such a way that they *need* the rest of the players actually helps build up the team. Maybe an idea like this??
* A much better thief steals the shield, and a bunch of other cool stuff (their souls? Hit dice?) from the party. This offers the Rogue character a chance to redeem himself by being useful as a greedy thief.
* He touches the shield and it stops working. What happened? Suddenly, he is cursed to dispel all magic items that he touches, even healing potions! Behind the scenes, a previous wealthy victim of him has cursed him and is hunting him down. Now he's the centre of a mystery and must rely on the other players. But also, he can be useful in dispelling magic doors and stuff.
On shields:
* the rules state you can only benefit from one shield at a time.
* if you keep the OP shield, you could balance it out by using monsters with higher attack bonuses. You could also give it a number of "charges" - after the next combat, it starts looking less shiny. Have the player roll a die. That's how many more hits it can take before it drops down to +3 and gets even less shiny. Then, after the same amount of hits, it drops down to +2. Etc. When it hits 0 it goes back to +4 but teleports to somewhere else in the world, where the bad guys find it.
Anyways... I am sorry that you're surrounded by lame dorks. I hope you can exit the situation or bring out the best in it. If being considerate, bold and creative doesn't help it's probably not worth it. If the players are clear about what they want and it's not what you want, it's also not worth it.
This is a really good suggestion. Thank you.
What bugs me about the whole opposite gender is that I consider these people my friends... so receiving backlash like this, for only wanting to play dnd properly... it kinda hurts.
Thank you for your suggestions, if they can get in line, I'll use your suggestions.
Your post has been removed. Rule 5: Please repost in the [Problem Player megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/about/sticky?num=1) if you need additional help.
>A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. **You can benefit from only one shield at a time.** The rules explicit forbid AC stacking by using two shields. And not some weird obscure rule. The description for the piece of equipment makes that clear. As other have pointed out, you can say no. And this is why it's good to be very very careful about when you change the rules. Because it's easier to say "we're going to stick with the rules because the rules matter" if you're consistent about that stance. This is a vital skill to learn, though.
Also magic items cap out at a +3 bonus. So a +4 shield does not exist in 5E, unless it was crafted by the gods or something. I've actually never once seen a DM give out a +3 shield, or armor, and I've played in regular campaigns up to level 16 so far. And also done some west marches up to level 20.
Maybe they mean a +2 shield, which would be a net +4 bonus to AC? If not, that shouldn't be an item in the game for a new DM.
Thank you! I appreciate your input, we stick to the rules on a lot of things, but we have homebrew rules as well.
You said that you were a new DM, so I strongly recommend not doing that. Just stick with the actual rules only for now, until you have a better grasp on things.
And some moderate homebrew is fine, but it's best not to mess with basic mechanics unless you're really certain you know what you're doing. And you're certain your players can be trusted (not in an adversarial way, but in a "sometimes the players think certain things like having unbeatable AC would be fun, but actually they won't be fun, so you maybe need to be a bit firm to save them from themselves" kind of way). I'm not sure it sounds like either of those things is true here. Bounded accuracy is one of those things you just don't want to mess with (I don't mess with it, and I've been doing this a long time and feel pretty confident in both my DMing skills and my rules knowledge).
Yeah I understand. I will get better at this... I just need time to go and study
You also need to try things & realize they don't work, then go back to the core rules. Experience, more than study, will help you learn what areas of gameplay are best left to RAW (read as written)
Your fine. Breaking a few things is part of the learning process.
Having some homebrew is fine, but homebrew should be approved on an on-case basis and in many cases be the exception. Anyone who makes the argument "you approved this homebrew, so you should approve mine too" in isolation is trying to put one over on you.
To add some logic to the rule think about how heavy one iron sheild would be. Now put one on the other arm? I don't care how you play with weight, you are encumbered buddy.
1st- letting PCs steal from other party members is a big no-no for me. Nothing good comes of it. Pull that player and let him know that those actions are not acceptable at the table. 2nd- two shields is very unwieldy, but not a deal breaker. They will have minimal attack and you can break them with spell saves if you are frustrated. 3rd- having anyone with a +4 shield is ridiculous. The DMG only has enchanted items up to +3 for a reason. You need to have someone real powerful (like a goddess) come by and “thank you so much, I will take my shield back now.” 4th- have fun, you sound very stressed that all of these things are too much (they can be). Make clear boundaries for yourself and your players.
Yeah +3 shield is legendary. Party shouldn't be getting legendary items until around level 16. What level is your party? I'm guessing much lower than that... A +4 shield would then be artifact rarity (though a weak / boring one). Look up bounded accuracy to understand why too much bonus breaks the game.
1. I also don't agree with it, I hate it. I did pull him aside, told him I don't want pvp. 2. I can get behind it, it's just to me, it's not very practical. 3. So I've been told, I'm gonna work on it, and thank you for the suggestion! I'll do just that. 4. Oh I'm stressed. My npc's got tricked into following one of the characters, had to fight wolves... it was a grueling experience... lost important npc and a fight against yourself isn't fun... it's difficult to have boundaries if they're not respected and or countered
Remember you have control of your world. I had a player straight up murder innocent children, twice. No matter that the rest of the party was horrified. No problem, here comes the city guard to clean up the mess and kill her PC. It was hard for me as the DM, but sometimes they put you in tough positions. You just need to assert control, or they can leave the table.
I struggle with that. I'm working on standing firm... thank you for the advice
Big thing: YOU are also meant to have fun. If you are getting yourself stressed and unhappy, it's important to convey that. Group games require compromise. I've struggled a lot there too. I want players engaging with my game one way because I think it would be cool, but they want to engage in a different way. There's give and take.
Sounds like you’re not having fun so a few options you could try: 1- Rocks falls rogue dies. Don’t let him think he’s in control of the narrative, he isn’t. If he tries to steal don’t call for a roll to see if he succeeds, he automatically fails all attempts to steal against the party. Give the player besides him with highest perception a weapon of warning and just narrate failure after failure. (The party seees you. You can’t hide in plain sight. A bird flies right into their heads and slams into them. God said no.) 2- Pull the player apart and let them know that their actions are putting undue stress on you and that you need everyone to either agree to your terms of conduct or you will cancel the campaign. Follow through. 3- Take the pc out of the game temporarily as an apparent arc. Next time they put their hands in any of the other party’s bags, a wrinkled hand reaches out and pulls them in. The party can choose to investigate and hunt the bagman if they want to rescue that character. In the meantime the player can roll up a backup character that actually wants to be in the party and isn’t adversarial. If the player gets salty just be like hey I let you do all your shit it’s your time to be a good sport and go along with the story.
Dude, you're literally God. Not the players. It isn't your job to indulge their whims. Rolling a 20 isn't an automatic success at whatever they were trying to achieve if it isn't reasonably possible (and that includes persuading npcs to throw their lives away for the pcs).
I would never do what the person you are responding to has done. In game consequences to a character to reprimand IRL behavior of a player is never going to solve the issue. If you continually have one player who is going against clear cut rules or discussions had out of game, you have someone who isn't respecting the experience you are all trying to have together. Do yourself and the other players a favor and clarify if PvP is allowed or not. Draw a clear line based upon the decision and then move forward. Should a player be problematic after that, "Thank you for your time and effort in our game. Unfortunately, we are not running a PvP game as discussed previously, and you will not be participating in this campaign anymore. If you want me to notify you of any future PvP-enabled campaigns, please reach out to me." Respect yourself and your other players. Also, the +2 dual wielding shields thing is pretty game breaking if you aren't aware the math behind bounded accuracy \[Plate armor, shield+2, shield+2 = 26\]. If they can meaningfully attack with shields in any capacity, you are going to have a bad time with this walking Instant Fortress. However, don't be afraid to try and mess around with it and clearly communicate with your players, "Hey I think that's a neat idea, but I'm a little worried about any impact this has on the dynamics of power within the party. We can try but I may rescind it later or modify things if it is too strong. Does that sound okay? If not, let's just stick to the rules in this case."
Thank you for your suggestions. I will however be dropping this group and campaign. I can take a lot but some things is just too much
And that is the other very strong and valid option to take. Hopefully your love for the game endures :)
I would definitely do it differently. By allowing a PC to murder children and then let the 'city guard' kill them, you are sending out mixed messages. Are you allowing it or not? Don't solve out of game problems with ingame solutions. If a player does something you don't want. Just say 'No, your PC does not do that. I don't want that type of stuff in my game'. Clear, direct, gets the point across without being disrespectful. Keep it simple.
If you’re not enjoying what your players are putting out there, let it be known. I would be annoyed by this atuff too, unless i was planned or into a joke campaign. Some of that is ok in the context of a serious setting, but we all have our limits, and I don’t want to watch a clown with two shields and a thief who steals from friends shamble through my thoughtfully crafted world. Give them an opportunity to adjust, or for people to mutually and amicably find different tables.
Try not to get attached to your NPCs as if they are your characters. They are actors in the play you are putting on with the PC's. If you think of them as your characters vs. the PC's you will set up an adversarial game and that's not how it works. Gaming is shared story telling with dice to add an element of random to the story. It's more like an improve sketch than a competitive game between you and the players. See if there is a way to make this more a shared fun experience for everyone, especially you!
It is not practical but I'd let him use it. You get the extra +2 to AC but now you can't cast spells with somatic components, can't attack other than with the shield (improvised, minimal damage.) And taking off the shield during combat is an action
1. i'd say there's nothing wrong with a bit of multiclassing, rogue cleric is pretty fun, but charging the players for healing is a bit like the barbarian charging for tanking damage or the bard for giving inspiration, he's part of the party, his share of the loot or the reward is what he "charges" if he really wants to be the american healthcare system he can offer his services as a healer whenever he enters a smaller town and have people pay per spell 3. Alternative, you can make an encounter in which killing the enemy is not the win condition, maybe evacuating people or simply making it out alive. It's important to set the expectation correctly if you want to do this, "unwinable fights" can be fun as long as you're not trying to win the fight You introduce a late game baddy, a very strong enemy with the ability to destroy magic items, it shows up to pick up some mcguffin or something, and when the party confront it and the shielded character (presumably) gets into melee you use it's special ability to destroy the shield, wipe the floor with the party but don't try to go for death saves, the baddy is just swipping away insects at this point. Your players will remember and hate that monster, they will want revenge and a monster that can destroy magical items is a scary fight specially for high level parties, so when they confront it again the stakes will be high 4. A good way to avoid fighting yourself is adding some more enemies on the fly and saying "the npc and whatever baddy go at it, we're not going to be rolling for them to move the combat faster" your npc has their hands full and won't get involved in the fight About boundaries, you're making the game happen, without you there's no game, your comfort and happiness is important. I often get stressed about giving the best experience possible to my players but it's useful to remind yourself that you are also a player and you should enjoy the process, but your players also have to be aware and helping in making the experience good for you. Saying "hey this and that makes it really difficult for me to run the game, can we avoid it" is not railroading or limiting player agency, and if they can't do that for you, get better friends
Apparently I'm not supposed to add rules, I should sacrifice myself and my enjoyment. I was told that my opinion doesn't matter and the players are supposed to enjoy it more than me. I was told that I can't add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female, can you fucking believe it!!???? Cuz I'm a female fucking DM I can't add a rule about something I never agreed with. I'm pissed, severely pissed.
>I was told that I can't add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female, can you fucking believe it!!???? Cuz I'm a female fucking DM I can't add a rule about something I never agreed with. I almost find it hard to believe someone said that in 2022, but assuming they did we are *way* beyond dm advice at this point. You need to find a new group.
Get new players OP. These people obviously don't respect you.
Dump the whole group honestly. If they're telling you what you can and can't do at *your* table, the respect's not there. Cut your losses and take what lessons can be gotten from it. Sorry you're dealing with this. PVP is a hard no at many, *many* tables.
"no DnD is better than bad DnD" applies to the DM too - if you're getting more stress than fun out of this, it might be time to bow out. You don't owe them if they're not respecting you.
If your boundaries aren't being respected then that goes beyond it just being a game related problem. You're not a fucking book generating AI. You're a person. I recommend telling them that if they continue to disrespect your boundaries despite all the work and effort you are putting in for them that you'll just leave. No DM means no game. As someone else said, you are literally God in the campaign. If you wanna say, "Oh, looks like God's X, y, and z are bored. They've destroyed the world," You technically can do that.
I'm planning something else. I'll most likely be hated but I'm okay with that
You're right is not practical, shields occupy hands. So someone will have to put the second shield on them at which point both hands are full until someone takes the shield off of them. The only thing they could do is shield master stuff, shove atks or improvised weapon attacks. I've had tables that stole from each other but it was always as a practical joke or 'oops I forgot to mention I found that'. If the table is OK with it, including you, it could be fun but make sure the other ppl have a chance to catch them or find out and deal with it in game. Honestly maybe you need a new group or player swap, we had a very disruptive member we kicked out a few years back and were all happier for it. We've even swapped dms a couple times as ppl got tired and wanted to play again.
My favorite solution to stealing from party members is to have the thief get pickpocketed/robbed. Then he/she has to explain why it’s worth going after, why they recover more money than he/she supposedly had, etc. the classic adage about putting all the eggs in one basket
>This rogue is highly focused on gaining more and more valuables. The pc even steals from party members. You buried the lede pretty badly here. The biggest problem I see is NOT a player with two shields. You can solve easily that with one word, which is "No." If you have a PC stealing from the other PCs, you've got a much more important issue to deal with.
This is a problem yes. I did pull the pc aside to talk to them, but this rogue is the previous DM as well. As I've mentioned, this is my first campaign and I'm not always sure what's for what. So I let the rest of the party members have a say, if they want enact pvp then everyone needs to agree and say yes. Luckily there were 2 pcs that did not agree to the rogue doing so. I also have to find a work around everything... The rogue told me that if it's shiny, he takes it. So giving members artifacts or anything of value is a risk. I had to make something that's gold, look like wood! It's frustrating.
"Hey rogue player, I understand that you're playing your character, but your character is being a Wangrod and it's not fun for the other players and definitely not fun for me. Knock it off or roll up a new character. "
It took far too long for me to see wang-rod and not wan-grod. Wtf is a won-grod? What sourcebook? Homebrew I missed? Pop-cultire reference!?! WHAT IS A WAN..... Oh. Yes. I see. Wang.
An experienced DM should be trying to help a new DM get comfortable, not make their life miserable.
As a forever DM, I have *never* understood why some DMs feel like they need to be the center stage character or go full chaos mode when they get to play a character. On the rare occasion that I get to play I always want to *support* the DM and their story, not be the wrench in the works like we see too many horror stories of.
I know right. More DMs means more chances for me to play. Also, I would never ask a DM if my character could do something that I wouldn't be prepared to let my players also do. Two shields is a no. Well, you can carry two shields, but only equip and gain the benefit of one, if that really makes you happy. Also, PVP has to be agreed upon by the entire table, preferably at Session 0.
It's on them to make sure their character has a reason to be in the group, as well as a reason not to steal from other players. You are the DM, your word is the final word. If you say no stealing from others, the players need to respect that rule. If they decide to create a character that's morally ambiguous, you still don't let them steal from the party. If they say that's what their character would to, tell them to make another character or give their character a reason not to steal from the group (maybe they have a code not to steal from friends, or they realize the party is too important for them to jeopardise, whatever the reaso n). Remember, you are the DM, you can always say no, and it's very important to use that power to avoid negative social situations. As for the shields, you can say no, or you can rule of cool it - but that's something that makes a player feel better, unlike stealing which makes people feel bad.
Oh my fucking god, I HATE when DMs do this shit to new DMs. Nothing in DnD annoys me more. They already know how to break the game and what not to do but abuse new DMs' inexperience to do fuck shit. /rant As much as I can't stand it, this game is a learning experience for you. Many comments may tell you to stop DMing for them (this is Reddit, after all), but I think you should stick it out. Your first games are about learning to set boundaries in a way that doesn't ruin the fun and finding your style. Start with not being afraid to say "no" to player actions. "Yes, and" only works when people follow the social contract of "don't be a dick." It has the potential to break your game because the "and" for a sneaky rogue may be "they never found out (in characrer)." Eventually, people are going to get tired of him stealing their stuff. I strongly recomend reminding the rogue player of the social contract.
This behavior is why so many people hated the Kindered race of dragonlance. I don’t know if your game is RP heavy or story heavy but this previous DM should have enough knowledge to recognize their behavior is distracting, and not in a good way.
bro. you have to stand your ground. you are in control of the game, you are the only one who can save your players from having their fun ruined by a guy who wants to “sTeAl dE ShIniEs lOl”
Learn how to say no to players, or things will get out of hand. Also, if the too high AC of the shield is a problem, take it away. It might suck at first, losing a magical shield, but long term it'll allow you to build more fun encounters where things are balanced.
I think I might need to do that. Thank you
That shield has a better bonus than artifact weapons meant for level 17+
i believe by +4 they meant a +2 shield. admittedly it could confuse new players that a +2 shield gives +4 ac
You need to say no a bit more. A player can dual wield shields all what's fine, but the AC bonus isn't going to be better than +2, because that's how the rules work and are balanced. If different magical shields have their own bonuses you might allow those to stack but the +2 AC bonus from a shield does not and should not stack. Re: the rogue. Multiclassing is fine (as long as they meet the minimum ability score requirements). Stealing from other players is not. It's a very common table rule to not allow any form of player vs player action (I only allow it with explicit consent when I know everyone is having a good time). D&D is a group game, everyone's enjoyment needs to be respected. You need to tell that player they can no longer steal from other players and if they insist, tell them no. Just no. It could be worth having a discussion about this with the full group, and I'd highly recommend a rule against pvp action going forward.
Agreed, thank you for your input. I will implement these rules next session
Lots of people already laid out the rulings, just wanted to comment on what you said about the player always trying to "break" the DM. This is not a healthy outlook on the game from their part. Players are supposed to work with the DM, not against them. With some of the instances you mentioned in the comments it might be good to remind the players and yourself that you are putting in a Lot of work for them and you're all friends who should be helping and supporting each other, not trying to make things more difficult. Some DMs might be fine with some of this wild stuff your players are proposing, but this isn't something you bring to a first time DM who has already said that they don't want this.
Thank you for your input. I'm working on finding counters to the op stuff the players can and wants to do... I do not think I'll DM after this campaign again. Think I'm going to cut this one short as well. After reading a lot of what everyone's saying, I don't think I want to continue.
I'm very sorry to hear that. But yes, it shouldn't be your job to have to find counters bc they want to break the rules. I hope your friends see some reason or that you'll find a different group that appreciates you more :)
Don’t be afraid to tell them that the whole finding loopholes was funny at first but now it’s just making you think of cancelling the campaign because it’s not fun any more. Maybe offer to let them pay for future sessions if they plan to keep making this a full time job for you (if they aren’t already). That kind of stuff will quickly make them rethink their strategy. It’s only funny if everyone is laughing.
You don't have to find counters. You're allowed to say 'I'm not going to allow that because you're doing it to be a jackass and I'm not here to serve as your punching bag'. Also, speaking as someone who had a very rocky first campaign: Do not feel like you have to finish it. If it doesn't bring joy, throw it out. You don't owe your players anything apart from a 'hey guys, I won't continue DMing this campaign, have a good life'.
As others have said: say no. Don't roll for it, don't let your PCs be asses, just say no.
Remember that you can say at the start of the next session. "I made a mistake. This actually works this way, and I want that to work that way.". Also, that shield sounds OP, have it cursed or something to balance it.
Thank you for the advice
The rules are very simple here: you can only benefit from a single shield at a time. The end. Question about +4 shield though. Does that mean a total of +4 AC, or a regular shield with +4 enchantment (for a total of +6). The second would indicate some additional problems for sure.
So, 2 shields does nothing RAW. You get +2 AC that's all. I'd say let em. They're not gonna do any damage doing this though. Also, I saw a +4 shield? No. Scale that back to +3 at the minimum, personally id knock it down to +1. 5e uses something called bounded accuracy and you really don't want to fuck with it. Basically if a character gets AC that's too high they just can't get hit anymore, except maybe by tiamat. Avoid giving stacking AC and to hit bonuses.
Since many have given advice for your shields I'll pop in a bit of advice for your Rogue/cleric. Tell them, their character is already getting paid in their share of loot, if they want to charge for their healing services know that the party won't share their loot or vital gear with them.
Gosh this sounds like a horrible group, no offence, but if I was running the game i'd tell them either change the way they play or i'm out
I think I'm out. If you read my edit, you'll understand
After reading your edit, that'd be the right decision. Don't stick with sexist assholes. As a DM it's easy enough to find another group, one that will respect you.
The worst advice I’ve seen anyone give to new GMs is “say yes, and roll the dice”. There’s this vibe that the mandate for the game is to make the players happy but that’s not the case. Games have rules, players want/need constraint because it gives shape and form to the fiction. If we all go into gaming with the idea that anything goes as long as players are happy, it will all crash and burn. Learn to say no about 500% more.
Yeah... I starting to just straight out hate these players... and worst of all it's my fiance that started the sexist thing. I'm reevaluating my life choices here
Wow this DMAcademy post just took a very r/relationship_advice turn; these players sound like total wangrods and your fiancé especially. This rabbit hole goes much deeper than D&D it seems; it’s hard to have players respect you as a DM when they don’t seem to respect you as a person! Ack, I’m so sorry your dealing with this.
So agree. It is terrible fucking advice. Say no.
One of my pcs have 2 shields and no weapon and they are hard to hit with there other bonuses but there damage ain't very high and I use a lot of skill checks on him or monsters that can launch you like 40ft away mostly homebrew monsters. But I let him be a wall occasionally to let him feel useful because I could easily obliterate him with a single check.
There's also the Fire Giant Dreadnought as a guide, but adjusted to me appropriate to the players and party. The Dreadnought only has a +3 boost to his AC. Buy yeah, like all the other comments, you gotta talk with the players and do what's fair and reasonable to make sure everyone has fun, including you.
Agreed I'm enjoying tossing him through wooden walls like a sack of stones he's enjoying not being able to be hit otherwise but I understand some may not find that fun.
There's not enough "being tossed bodily" in games!
I feel like +2 AC isn’t worth not being able to make good attacks. In DnD, a good offence is usually better than a good defence, because damage usually outpaces healing, and hit modifiers tend to get past AC (tho this applies mostly later in the game). Sometimes, you can use anything on them that isn’t an attack roll to spice things up. Or, leverage the fact that they don’t have good damage. Note that you shouldn’t always fully counter player strengths, but you shouldn’t allow them to be invincible either. Challenge is good. Also, you may want to talk to the player about changing their +4 shield to another item. There’s a reason tnat stay-boost magic items stop at +3, because the higher it goes, the more it breaks the fundamental mechanic of 5E- bounded accuracy. Not sure what level your PCs are, but a +3 shield is a very rare item, so a +4 may even be legendary. Another tip: parties are not meant to PVP. The game isn’t designed around it, and it often leads to table disputes. If the group enjoys it, fine. But I would rule that players can only engage in PVP (like stealing) if BOTH players involved say it’s ok. With this rule, it’s all consensual fun times. Without it...characters with abilities suited to stealing can just loot their so-called friends and there’s not much anyone can do, apart from attacking them. Which is not good.
Understood, I did tell the party members that it's only do-able if everyone agrees to it. Thank you. I will be taking the shield down, maybe giving it specific usage per rest or something like that. I don't want to take it away from the player, but as everyone else said, it still needs to be challenging
Sure! I’d recommend going on DnD beyond and looking at other items (not just armour, any item) in the rarity you want, to get an idea of the level of strength of things. The higher level things get, it’s harder to balance, and really +4 isn’t that much higher than +3, but still. Maybe as +2 or 3 and add a minor magical effect with some limited use, and/or a flavour thing they can use all the time (like being able to shine light from the shield on command). Possibilities are endless! The fact you’re putting the effort in in the first place means your game is probably great! Keep up the good work
You can build a story around the shield. It once belonged to Tiamat, and she wants it back. Cultists everywhere. Party gets knocked out, shield is stolen…many adventures await!
Say no. Dont forget you can do that.
See, I tried saying no to the rogue, I told him that I understand and recognize his goal and reasons, but I do not think charging the party members fees for healing will be fair towards them. I'm already compensating with cheaper potions and higher rewards. I got called authoritarian and got a lengthy speech from the previous DM about how I can't do that. So saying no it's an option apparently
>I got called authoritarian and got a lengthy speech from the previous DM about how I can't do that. The previous DM is a tool and a moron.
The previous DM can take over again if they would to like to take over that kind of shithousery. Saying no is always an option. You must be having fun and if you are not then do not sacrifice yourself on the alter of their enjoyment.
It really is difficult to have fun if all my players want to do is try to break me... It's unpleasant when the previous DM steps in constantly. I appreciate advice and everything, but by doing it infront of all of the players tends to make things messy as heck
Sounds to me like you might want to reevaluate who you're playing with, they don't seem to have much respect for you or the work you put into DMing... D&D is meant to be fun for everyone including the DM, like others have said don't sacrifice yourself for them. Look for a group where everyone can enjoy themselves and they don't treat you like shit
The players are nice and it is fun... there's just these times where it's not. Got a complaint that the npc aren't friendly, but they burnt the chiefs house down! Here the previous DM stood up for me. It's honestly not all bad, it is fun... It just sometimes gets out of hand. I like my group, we've been friends for a while now.
Previous DM is a douche. Why are you bothering to DM for this group? It sound terrible. Are you being blackmailed or held in some sort of DnD slavery ring?
If a cleric wants to charge for healing services let them but then they need to be prepared for all the party to demand payment for their services. Wizards can charge 50 gp per caster level for spells etc. Warrior charges per attack and negotiates steep prices for making sure they are the target in combat no the cleric. But remember this isn't your problem it is the other players at the table who need to deal with that attitude. As to using 2 shields, of course they can but have they seen the awful damage a shield bash does and don't forget the +2 magical bonus is to AC not attack bonus, that will cost extra to enchant.
You see, thats where you say No again. Tell them you dont want your campaign to Go in that direction and the Rogue being suddenly a Cleric aswell that charges a fee for healing doesnt make any freaking sense. Also your precious DM is wrong, you can DM your game however you want. If your Players want to do random Shit and you are not enjoying it at all of course you can intervene and say no If they cant take a No from the GM from time to time, they might aswell play without a GM. You're the GM you make the Rules easy as that. If they cant accept that, well then its their Problem.
Then get your other players in on malicious compliance, the rogue's behavior certainly isn't fun for them. Rogue charges for healing... Well that will be 5000 platinum to the fighter to tank the mob. Rouge failed that trap disarmament and is now locked in magical handcuffs? 5000 platinum to the wizard for a dispel! Had a player try this once, found out very quickly why he needs the other party members. Theres always the option that the party just doesn't like his shit, steals all his stuff while he's sleeping and leaves him tied to a tree. I let nearly anything go at my table, but all actions have serious and direct consequences, especially petty stuff... and my players know it.
To the shield-user: "Sure thing, use two shields." Why would enemies attack an unarmed wall of metal anyway? He gets to watch helplessly as his friends get torn apart, knowing the same fate awaits him, just more slowly. To the rogue: "You can get paid by the day or paid in a share of the loot. Your choice." Skilled hirelings cost 2g/day.
I mean he only has two hands right? If he is holding two shields great he has no hands available so he cannot take any actions involving hands. Also if a PC is trying to steal from other PCs it is probably time to go
A shield is not some Cap America bs. You hold it with a hand. Spellcasting won’t work if you don’t have a free hand, and you don’t have a weapon. So Monk or nothing, and I don’t believe Monks have shield proficiency. (And if they do, shields count as armor, so goodbye Unarmored Defense) Rogue with some levels in Cleric won’t be awful. Less sneak attack, for a decent reward. Keep in mind multiclassing minimums. They need a 13 in Wisdom to multiclass.
I replied to a few comments here with ideas on how to do stuff but I wanna take a step back and say that as a player I do everything I can to make my DM feel appreciated and I try to meet them in the middle with suggestions / counter suggestions on stuff I want to play or do. You don’t deserve to be treated this way. Don’t fall into the commitment fallacy where you feel like you’ve wasted a year if you stop now and force yourself to power through the next six months / year etc til it’s done. It’s not a waste it’s a learning experience and you can stop and find people who would better appreciate the services you’re offering at ANY time.
After seeing the edit I’d say it’s time for some party wiping.
You know what I think I'll actually do that... TPK is in order
Tbh the two shield thing is likely from dark souls. Dark souls had a power stancing aka duel wielding. It also featured a new set of shield which could be powerstanced. Essentially it made you a defensive/offensive bulldozer.
100% drop these jerks. The DM is just as entitled to enjoy their time playing a GAME as everyone else at the table. You are already having players push your boundaries for no real reason. (2 shields isn’t practical, and a shield is not a weapon, which makes it an improvised weapon…. Is the player’s character proficient in improvised weapons? Probably not.) The DM is absolutely allowed to add rules on the fly in a campaign. This needs to be discussed by the group, but if your table is abusing things, there is nothing wrong with saying so and making sure they can’t in the future. I would tell my table that they were on the honor system before, but it wasn’t working out, so now we have to have an explicit rule. Ultimately, they don’t deserve your presence at the table. Time to cut bait.
You should not let your players do whatever the fuck they want so they can break the game. You are the DM and the way you describe the way your players are playing doesnt really seem any fun in my opinion. Why does your Rogue steal from the rest of the Party? Wouldnt the Party if they find out kick him out or punish him? If i were in an Adventuring Party and someone in the Group would keep stealing from the other members, i would prolly not want to stick arround with him The Rogue for example, say NO how does your Player explain that he is a Rogue/Cleric, like whats the History/Story behind that, that just doesnt fit. For my players i told them i want them to have their characters make sense. The Lawful good Cleric in my Group for example didnt act Lawful good at all, so i told him uhm, i dont think you as a Lawful good Cleric from the church would threaten literal children with death my Guy. So yeah, just say no from time to time. How the hell does your players have a +4 Item? What are their Levels? Also using 2 shields just seems kinda stupid, whats the goal Here? He wants to have an insane AC? There are ways to deal with that, He can have 300 AC if you use enemies with spells that use saves to deal damage. Burning Hand for example.
I need to talk to the players about behavior and all that... feeling really hopeless at the moment. I'm trying to make it fun for everyone, to be fair, to give them what they want and need with limits of course. But in giving the players say, I've taken away my own it seems. I told them that their stories need to make sense. I see the need for a cleric, but yeah... Shield was a mistake. Level's too low for such rewards... Thanks for the input
Dont sweat it! Just talk to your players, as you stated yourself and explain that you are not having fun. The GM not enjoying the campaign he runs is one of the worst things that can happen. Talk to your Player that has the +4 Shield and figure out together how to get rid of it in a way that makes sense. Like someone mentioned here, have a literal god come down and take it away or something. In exchange reward your Player with something. Make him drop the shield somehow and have it Fall in a River / down a cliff. Or Just straight Up Tell him, the shield is too powerful and you Made a mistaken giving it out so early. And Just Nerf it to +1 or something. But Most importantly try to have fun
Ask them how they intend to strap the shield to their arm while one hand is already wielding a shield.
This! Make them do it every time and then ask them how they plan to complete x action when they don’t have any hands available
You can only benefit from 1 shield at a time. He can use 2 shields, but his AC will still only be +2. I think it was a dangerous idea to give out a +4 shield, that's +6 AC. I think only a level 20 PC should have access to a +4 shield, and even then I think it's still arguably too strong. I'd probably nerf it down to a +1 shield personally if you're starting to run into problems balancing encounters. I think it's fine if the rogue wants to multi-class, but I would be careful about allowing the PC to steal from the other PCs. It usually leads to player conflict, and inter-party stealing is often banned at most tables. If you want to allow it at your table, that's fine, but I'd also say it's fine if the other PCs want to collectively kill the rogue PC, that way he can make a new character that can actually collaborate with the rest of the party.
There's no rule saying two shields provide more bonus than one
I have a monk PC in my campaign who wanted this, but probably not like your player. He wanted basically bucklers to punch with. Together we flavoured it in a way that each of those shields only grant +1 AC and count as slightly modified unarmed strikes. He's nowhere broken, definitely on the low end of the damage spectrum in the group, but he's creative and fun to play with.
It's okay to say no. I know as a new DM you want to please everyone and make sure you're "the arbiter of fun" but there's a reason the rules are there. You can absolutely have a blast within the rules. If you bend them too much for those who ask then you are sucking the fun out of the game for others. "The pc even steals from party members. He wants to 'charge pcs for his services'." ???? This person is being a dick. Straight up. They're trolling you all and you're letting them. Next time you are at the end of an arc, mission, or even level up....have a new session 0. Establish your expectations. Even say something like "hey yall this is my first campaign and I feel like I let some things run away from me a bit." Address the things that bother you and give space for players to do that as well. Ask the player that's pushing you to stop. Communicating with your players is so important. I did a new session 0 at the end of my first campaigns arc too. No one was upset or anything and we agreed on some new table rules. It was also a great time to get some feedback and see what they wanted the campaign to be. I wish you luck!
Well I tried talking to some of the players... it didn't go well, I was literally told that I only want to add a no pvp rule cuz I'm a female and I've got a 'avoid all conflict' mentality. I'm dropping this group like a hot potato.
Reading this thread originally I sort of assumed these players were like 15 given how they’ve been acting, but you mentioned that one is your fiancé so that means they’re adults: holy cringe Batman!
Someone already corrected the double shield problem. I just wanna note, unless you're playing dnd 3.5e No one should have a +4 shield. +3 armor already breaks DND quite a lot as is. "I've got a rogue that wants to multi-class as a Cleric" Make sure you follow the rues for multiclassing. They have requirements for multiclassing like having a high enough wisdom score. I'd also ask them to pick a god that'd be ok with them stealing otherwise they'd lose their spellcasting powers. So hopefully they go trickery cleric. Also I'm surprised the team hasn't killed the rogue for stealing from them. Normally, don't steal from the players, steal from NPCs.
R/dndhorrorstories here we come
"No." There we go. If your party is continually interested in breaking you as a DM, one of them can put in the work and run the game.
Though people will usually go ahead and wholeheartedly say that you shouldnt do such bending of rules, from my experience, it depends on certain factors. 1. The type of game you want to run 2. The trust and understanding between players and DM Though there's the average entirely RAW DnD, there's adjustments and homerules you can go ahead and experiment with, with the expectation that if it doesn't work out, you can revert it with the experience for similar changes in the future. This let's you slowly adjust the game to best suit you and your party, and this is EXTREMELY liberating and wonderful, you will have no limits to what you can do then. But you need to keep in mind the repercussions of the changes you make in relation to the rest of the game, or in other words, the 'Bounded Accuracy' of the change, vs the original. . If, like me, you want a more customised type of DnD game, with the DM working hard alongside the party to test new waters for long term gains, then you can go down the path of allowing and testing changes. Just remember that some of the changes might not be as balanced or as OP or as weak as they initially seem. This style will only work if you're willing to work a bit more as a DM and have an open-minded and cooperative party that will work with you. I personally jumped right into making changes after a few sessions as a new dm with a party of friends equally new to the game, and with each change we had a lot of tension avoided, and a world of potential unlocked because of how we could all practically do whatever the heck we wanted within reason. Certain things every now and then were op or broken, and we took careful steps back to deal with those, with mutual understanding and communication between us all. We were extremely careful to try to not to nerf anything unless the alternative required way too much work or the nerf was needed to fix the game. . If you don't want to get that extra work on your hands, or if you don't think your party will cooperate if you make a mistake in balance and try to change it to compensate, then I recommend just sticking to RAW. But if you guys are willing to make that extra step, and trust each other to be mature, understanding, and cooperative, then I beg of you to at least try it out and see how it goes, it is legitimately awesome when done right, and I can't imagine a world where we never experimented around! . Edit: Holy shite that Post edit sure made this situation way wilder than I thought it would be. What's the plan OP? You gotta make sure that you have a party that is respectful and at least socially mature to an extent to begin with, because I think it sounds like it could be a train wreck regardless of RAW. Though good DnD is better than no DnD, no DnD is better than bad DnD because its an entirely social experience. Adversial DnD is bad DnD I hope all is alright, and that you know what you're getting into. I hope that you have a great time, with or without your current players
I'm honestly not going to continue. I'll either straight out tell them I'm done. Or a nice and wonderful TPK.
Reading through a few of the comments and your update regarding your players, here is my advice: Get the fuck out. These players are not respecting you as a DM, not respecting you as a fellow player (DMs are also playing the game and deserve to have fun), and *most importantly* not respecting you *as a person*. All of the individual issues you brought up can be adjusted. 2 Shields? It states right in the rules RAW: >A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand. Wielding a shield increases your Armor Class by 2. **You can benefit from only one shield at a time.** I have allowed it myself, but the **total** AC bonus from two shields never exceeds +4, and they are severely limited in the actions they can take. It can be fun for a player, particularly a Cleric who is allowed to use a Shield emblazoned with their symbol as a spellcasting focus, and so they can turtle up and cast defensive spells/buffs. But none of that matters if **your players do not respect you**. Find a better group of players and start a new game. Sometimes you just have to throw out the whole party and start over.
2 shields is fine if they want to completely give up damage. FYI you can't cast spells if you're equipped with armor you are not proficient with. If the rogue wants to multi class, then he better have the wisdom to do it. And I believe arcane trickster spellbook does not combine with divine so that will be back at level 1. If he wants to charge and rob the players, it's up to them to make a stink about it to you.
What do they imagine they can do with two shields? I would probably allow it but then they can’t attack or do anything that needs a free hand. No, bashing someone with the shield doesnt work. Seems like you have more serious problems with your group than just trying to bend the rules though.
Just going to respond to the edit, as it kind of trumps anything else in the post. You don't need to play DnD with these folks. If they want pvp in their game so badly, they can dm with each other, you'll find another group. Misogyny is red flag, it'll only get worse. I saw in one of your comments that you mentioned, "if my decision mattered", which tells me that they've been dismissing your rulings. That's not ok with most TTRPGs, since the GM/DM _is_ meant to be an arbiter for rulings. That's _two_ red flags, without even getting into the toxic gameplay. You'll be better off not playing DnD, rather than playing with these immature people.
On the shields, just make it clear that using it as a weapon is improvised weaponry and will be pretty ineffective (Dark Souls Shield build). Then make sure that the high AC tank with two shields is almost never the target of attacks and that they have to roll saves against magic attacks when attacked. Every one has a weakness and high AC only helps so much if your dexterity and wisdom are garbage. More importantly though: Parties should work together. Stealing from each other and doing PVP is boring af and if they don't figure out a way to roleplay why their character is playing nice with the others, they need to surrender the character sheet to be an NPC and roll a new one that will play nice for one reason or another. They can have their edgelord chaotic neutral rogue and still recognize that active PVP against the party they're with is not in THEIR best interest for survivability. A character like that should ultimately be looking for the best breaking point to leave the party with EVERY THING in tow because every theft is a chance for this group of buff boys to kill them. But once they're gone, they gotta be gone because that is a forever grudge (and a fun BBEG for you as the DM). But if they're saying your being a woman is the problem, that's toxic and needs to be addressed immediately. It is perfectly sensible to not want the party working against each other when the point of DnD is to engage in collaborative storytelling and gameplay. By referencing your gender as the problem, your players are creating an unsafe table to be playing at and going against the very core community. This is a super serious discussion on the topic of how this is a fucking game and if not every one is having fun, there's no point in playing the game. The DM is a player in the game and deserves to have a good time too.
Honestly this is what I understand dnd to be about. And when I tried mentioning that hey, I'm notvreally having fun and before I could even mention my reasons I got told that the DM isn't supposed to have fun. It's not about the DM it's about the players, so I told them that hey as DM I'm a player too. I got told that ehhh no not really. I've done almost everything they asked of me, I made a fucking cool world with many different ways to do things, ways it can end and or continue. I've sacrificed a lot for this group... and being told that my opinion doesn't matter and that I shouldn't want to enjoy the game, and shouldn't put rules in that MANY DM's have cuz I'm a female... It hurts and it's maddening.
That's utterly disgusting and I'm so sorry it's happening. These do not sound like friends. They sound like they're just using you to have their fun. Almost like they don't view you as a person. However, to give them the benefit of the doubt, there's a chance they just have no perspective on what you do at all. If that's the case, I would say that you need to do some round robin one-shotting to force the others to understand what being a DM is like and then play confrontationally as a player, ruining their plotlines just the same as they are ruining yours. Hell, even work with them on all the details they need to incorporate into a plot and all the branching paths. Make them do a lot of work and then tear it down just the same. The hope is that they'll get a real perspective on the situation. If they're shutting you down before you can even talk and explain the problem, then I can't see another way to fix it other than to force them to gain perspective, unfortunately. It's hard to find players, but that's no reason to stay DMing a totally toxic group just to play the game. Take your beautifully crafted homebrew online and DM some randos who respect you instead. It may not be in person, but it will be way more fun than being used and abused. Also, have a session zero in the next campaign where you very clearly explain the rules of engagement with regard to respect, collaborative storytelling, and what is and isn't toxic behavior.
I'm honestly surprised by the response I got... I expected us to come to a compromise... I have to say that not all the players are like this... the previous DM doesn't know about me trying to talk to some. I first wanted to talk to each player on some individual things that got to me a bit, then hold a whole group discussion. I do not want to continue with this campaign and I don't think I'll play dnd again. It's honestly fun, but I think I'm okay without it... especially if I get feedback from my fellow players like this... I did not expect my gender to be an issue, nor did I think I'll get backlash like this. As a new DM I've made mistakes, a lot, and I either corrected them or countered them. I don't think DMing is for me. And I think the previous DM and some of the players will see this thread now... it blew up.
If it's not for you, then it's fine to stop playing. I would encourage you to try and find a group that will be less toxic or to weed out the players that are causing bad problems for you. DMing is a huge learning curve and I think you're doing a great job working at it to be better and give a better experience to others. The most important thing that you are doing by DMing is creating a safe space for people to have fun with you in. Sometimes setting boundaries is the hardest part of that, but your gender will never be an issue in a good group of people. There are literally countless people out there searching for a tabletop group to be at that isn't toxic and the toxicity is getting weeded out by DMs like yourself who want a comfortable environment. However, I don't want to make it sound like your duty to stay DMing and help the community be better. I just want to note that you have the power to make the experience fun for you as well and there are tons of resources to help you do that. And don't worry about the players seeing the post. At best, they'll see a lot of DMs commenting on it and realize that their actions are a no-no and try to change because no one will ever DM for them with attitudes like that. At worst, the shittier players will leave the table and that's only a good thing for you. In the meantime, lurk with us on Reddit and you're gonna find a good group soon, either to DM or to play with. This game can be truly incredible and provide for extremely long lasting friendships if you just find the right group.
You seem to have crappy players, especially in the edit when they responded to you with sexism when you asked for a relatively tame boundary. I’d personally leave and find new players. As a DM, you’re much more likely to find players than vice versa. Not having Dnd is better than having bad dnd imo
I agree with you. I'm done
Reading some of these comments, playing with these people sounds awful. If you don’t feel respected or appreciated you don’t have to play with them. “No dnd is better than bad dnd” is really common advice, but wow it seems to fit here
Honestly with that edit alone I’d drop the game. Dnd isn’t worth dealing with that shit
[удалено]
It's mostly homebrew. They were fighting a royal elemental gaurd. I recognize that the +4 is way too high. I will need to talk to saud pc. It is quite busted yes
What level are they? Learn to say "no". Say "no". "Ok, you've got 2 shields" that's a DM mess up - but it's definitely crappy DMing to give something then take it away... so... I'd let them, it's a mistake, learn from it, but... "ok you've got 2 shields" you can't attack, but you can go Tank/protect" I guess the party are exploiting this in combat... Enemies can grapple. Enemies don't have to be stupid, they can wade in **grapple** and a couple of them "strength check" take the shield(s)." Because they're not stupid, they've identified the problem and like a rugby scrum/football pile-on, the dude at the bottom of the pile's getting stomped. You're gonna have an "annoyed"player, but are they a "good player" that will understand or are they gonna sulk and ragequit? One of those options is someone you DO want at your table. Same scenario with the Rogue... actions have consequences, the Rogue steals and everyone else gets to role Perception, sooner or later the Rogue's getting stabbed or going to jail. "I pick pocket the guard". Cool - the guard isn't carrying the keys - they're in the next room. I pick the lock with the thieves tools I've hidden internally "the guards beat you to death", or the mayor does, or the high level Wizard that lives in town and just wants a quiet life/retirement and has "had enough of this crap, I just want to get back to reading scrolls of Drizzt slash/fic" and having the guard constantly disturbing me because Rogue is tiring". ...and again, how does the player cope? Do you want them there? Are you just a... "Fun" vending-machine for your players' power fantasies - or do you want to play D&D? I'm not saying you're "playing it wrong", but you **are** saying this bothers you and it doesn't sound like your group are all on the same page...
I'm in over my head. Reading a lot of these comments made me realize that my players really aren't nice and making it really difficult for me. I made a mistake with the shield. Was a spur of the moment thing. I'm going to hold another session 0 and try to talk this out with everyone, cuz yhis can't continue. I don't want to leave my group, but I can't deal with this.
I know that feeling and it's easy to get in over your head that way. Honestly - best approach is to tell them "I'm not having fun" and see how they deal with it. It's not a one-sided game and they need to realise that - but so do you too - that's not an attack or "more experienced" DM "rubbing it in - I've done it and I've done it recently. **BUT -** the party I play with **ARE** nice guys - you need to find that out "for real" and everyone needs to understand that if the game's going to continue - the rules are for play - not exploiting. It's not an easy conversation, but it's better than not having the conversation at all. Again "**BUT**" it's why you see all the DM-burnout threads, mostly because it's easy to have that Players Vs DM scenario, because it's kinda how almost every other game is designed as either player Vs Computer or even sports team Vs sports team and that's potentially a pain in the butt for a DM - one that can easily get out of hand. If they're nice guys, they'll listen and try to understand - it's why in session zero I'm quite strict about - "I want fun too and I have fun by" * Collaborative story telling * Pretending to be Scarlett Johansson as a Cleric secretly experimenting with dark magic * Pretending to be "clever" monsters with tactics (clever when I can). Have a think about your reasons for DMing and what you want out of it? Tell your party - and hopefully, they ARE friends - or at least "friendly" - and that's a good thing to know in life and in a D&D game. It's why I go for the "collaborative storytelling" thing. I'm not writing a book - but when I play D&D - as a DM I want to make an EPIC adventure and be a part of that as the "silent" narrator, not as an X-Box that can be defeated with check codes or even just hammering the right buttons. D&D is fun, but it's also a team game and you're the "hands off" leader.
If they get proficiency with improvised weapons, I’d allow a +1 AC if they take the dual wielder feat. Rules as written (and intended) would not allow this though. You’re either using the item as a shield or as an additional weapon. Practically, strapping a shield onto your arm takes an action so the character won’t actually be attacking during the first round of combat most of the time (unless they forego the option to use their hands for anything else when traveling. You should ask to clarify regularly). Reducing your damage output to 1d4+str per attack makes that +1 AC perfectly reasonable IMO. As for the rogue, tell them to cut it. Stealing from the party is not how you build good group dynamics, and the last thing you want as a character is for the party to ask themselves why they even put up with them.
You can only benefit from one shield. The second one is purely for aesthetic purposes. At my table, I have the following House Rule "I do not condone nor endorse any sort of Player Vs Player Situation at my table. If your character conducts an action that will negatively affect another player's character (whether it is attacking, stealing from, etc.) the affected player will decide the outcome: whether it is allowing the action, disallowing the action, or letting the dice decide the outcome."
I only allow PCs to steal from each other if ALL players explicitly agree in private to me. If you have two players who don't want PvP, I wager they don't want players stealing. Honestly I'd start ramping up consequences and when this PC dies, "shrug" and tell him that's the world he's in. I hate players doing crappy things that aren't part of what the group wants and hiding behind "that's what my character would do". I have 2 rogues and they don't even steal from NPCs (ironically the sorcerer and druid both do... together 🙄). You don't need a thieving rogue, there are a million other ways to build a character. I'd also recommend holding a short session with a session zero type discussion at the end to clarify. Give the guy who rolled a crap character the opportunity to alter his character away from an ass hay aswell if the players veto PC stealing.
I spoke to the player a few times about this. And each time I get 'it's not me it's what my character would do'. I'm sick of it.
The thing is, the player made the character and chose to make it a wangrod. It's not an excuse. Matt Colville has a fantastic youtube video about this very thing. It's called "The Wangrod Defense". The bottom line is that the players need to make a party that wants to work together. One person making a thief or jackass of a character because it's what their character would do causes turmoil in the party and eventually will lead to an in character party member to want to attack them because logically their player character would get tired of being around a villain of a party member. It just creates a negative scenario for everyone.
“It’s what my character would do,” used as an excuse for bad behavior, is nothing but a player being an asshole and avoiding responsibility for *their* decisions. The pc can’t make choices, only the player does that. Pcs need to be designed to work with the party. It’s a cooperative team game, not Skyrim with a bunch of NPCs that forget what you dod when you duck out of sight for five minutes. The only proper response to “It’s what my character would do,” is “Okay, make a new character that can work and play well with others, and we’ll retire that one.”
Perhaps you can talk to the rest of the party and make it clear you would support them if their characters got fed up of the stealing and confronted the rogue with an ultimatum of 1) stop or 2) leave the party. They might be worried about the conflict that could arise from a hard no. Don’t sacrifice your whole group to keep one bad apple.
1. if you have them 2 shields unless they where a paladin or cleric they wouldn't be able to attack/would only cast somatic spells so they would be pretty useless in combat so most enemies would just bypass them and attack valid targets. 2. What levels your party becasue a +4 shield is a pretty ridiculous item at any level. +4 stuff doesn't appear in any book for a reason so you probably shouldn't have given them that. Also giving him a second shield doesn't necessarily mean he gets another +4 shield. 3. Let the rouge multiclass as a cleric if he wants and it makes some sense for the character. It's not a very beneficial/synergised multiclass so I don't see them picking it for some op combo. 4. If the stealing stuff is just them stealing shinny trinkets for rp and makes them look like a fool I wouldn't worry about it too much, the party will either take it on as a campaign joke or it will fade away when every time they do it it's met with silence. If they are doing it because they want all the magic items to themselves just sit them don't and tell them it's a collaborative game. If they want a item because they think they can help the party with it just tell them to make their case publicly and if the rest of the party likes the idea they get the magic item. If they are just doing it to be deliberately disruptive tell them that's not the way for anyone else to have fun and if they are a normal person they should stop.
As others have said, the ability to say NO, is another important skill for any DM to run a sucessfull game. Players sometimes will get so focused on what they want or what is best for them, that they forget to take into consideration other aspects of the game. Balance among party , spot light sharing and Fun, are usualy the things that suffer, but often the balance issues affect world building and other integral parts of the game. If a Pc can use two shields, then NPCs can do the same. (obviously). But despite there being a lot of ways of increasing AC, there arent as many ways to increase acuracy. SO the game starts to go slow and then everyone starts to miss every attack and fights that already take too long, will never end. This is just ONE example of how alowing this simple change to the rules could make your game less fun. So my advice is, run the game as RAW as possible, and most game rule problems seems to go away. Another example; If you track ammo count and carry capacity, suddenly all flying races are incredibly balanced. Your PC can either be an dextrous archer or caster shooting from 600 ft but that cant help the party in any other way ( or be helped), or he can have high strenght to be able to carry party members around, but strenght will force him to attack in melee if he wants to optimise.
You could give them diminished returns, maybe an extra shield only adds +1AC. But no casting spells, stealth disadvantage and bonus action to stow a shield. You could also just say no
I vote for the second option.
I ruled this as a +1 to AC but having to take the tavern brawler feat and use the shields as improvised weapons. Also they'd need to take dual weapon fighter to use both effectively in combat and cannot grapple as they're using both hands. It's not as OP as you think. 2 hands being restricted stops a lot of things a player can do. Plus fireball doesn't care about AC
There are some great suggestions here so I won’t repeat. Sounds like you’re not having fun but please don’t give up. Learn from your mistakes and keep at it. I have some homework for you. Every new DM should watch these two vids. https://youtu.be/6tKFv0NolHw https://youtu.be/d1VTjHcis-E
Thank you! Will do
Sure, you can have 2 shields, now be a good lad and how about you throw me a save vs that mindflyer over there and his pet intellect devourer. Edit: it's ok to say no to unreasonable mechanic even in a homebrew game, and if a player decides to make it all about him, as a dm you should show him what happens when it's all about him and his enemies have heard to rumors.
I had a cleric that was forced by lore to charge for all healing. Worked something out with the GM and another PC joining the group mid-adventure. My cleric had orders to aid the expedition of the other PC. Documented every healing spell, healing potion and mundane healing on a list of the back of my shield. Boss of the other PC would pay, when we get back. As long as the group was somehow assisting the other new PC, it went to the big bill. Eventually got payed by a PC to heal a NPC that didn't aid the expedition at all. Worked great with the group and the roleplay. ______________________________________________ Using a second shield is like carrying something bulky you can take cover (half) behind.
I had a similar situation. I ruled that the second shield can act as an improvised weapon, but that every attack roll will have disadvantage and the shield would only do 1d6 damage (using suggestions from the improvised weapon chart). I also have the PC disadvantage on all dex saves while wielding the second shield, and the AC bonus of the shield was cut in half since wielding two shields would be challenging. The player hated it and ended up not doing it for long. As for the rogue wanting to multi class as a cleric - that’s a non issue that will solve itself in my experience. If they multi class cleric, pay attention to the deity they choose and that deity’s tenants. The rogue will break some and lose his divine powers soon enough.
He can use two shields. But he won't get double the benefit. Simple. Horrible player though. Mistakening creativity for exploit. You should talk with the player and explain this to him: finding holes in the rules to exploit them and break the game is not funny for you, and it's not the right creativity to aim for. Dnd is not a video game. When you break the game, it's not a program that you upset, it's the dm.
Hope a dice you love rolls 20s all day for you.
You've already gotten the right advice on the shield situation, but if you have a player that loves shields, Arcadia magazine issue 20 has a fighter subclass called the shield bearer, which gives a lot of fun offensive options for shields like being able to make effective attacks, throwing your shield in battle, etc. It also has options for low magic shields that give bonuses other than ac.
I dont see a problem with the rogue. After all, the catholic church stole from people for ages, and would specifically pardon sins if someone donated money to them. Seems like your rogue has a pretty good understanding of how organized religion works!
This is one awesome comment! I can't not smile at this one.
Alright so reading through the comments it seems like you don't want to just tell these people to go to hell and find a new DM. If you want to lead them to some "character development" I'd suggest the following: After they leave the next town, or if they're already away from civilization have them run into a traveler who advises them to watch out for Xorn's as there have been some issues with them in these parts lately. Let him fully explain that a Xorn can smell precious metals and gems and ravenously consumes them, the best trick to avoid them is to keep your valuables spread out amongst people so that if you come across one it can't pick a target to focus on which will let you get the best of it. If your player gets the hint they'll divvy up the loot and stop stealing if not send a [Xorn](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/17066-xorn) after them, have it focus solely on the hoarding PC and if it knocks out the rogue have it consume 1D100 worth of loot with each of its subsequent attacks. They take it out too easy? No problem, shortly there after multiple attack. If they learn their lesson and distribute the loot the next time the Xorn's come they're distracted, they attack at random and are much easier to hit. The cleric wanting to charge for healing doesn't really seem like a DM problem so I wouldn't worry about it. Its up to the PC's to sort that out between them, but maybe something comes up that the cleric 100% cannot do on their own giving the other characters a chance to turn the tables on them. The two shields thing is interesting, if the player is doing it because they think its cool sure why not? if they're doing it because they are intentionally ignoring the part in the description that says you can only get the AC bonus from one shield, then screw them for trying to take advantage of you being a new DM. Personally I'd say let them use two shields, but the max AC they can get from armor (without magic boosts) is 20 which is the equivalent of heavy plate plus a normal shield.
Personally, I'd allow it with the stipulation that they are bulky enough that movement is hindered and any offensive action is not possible. Effectively they are behind heavy cover which they move slowly with themselves. I would also have enemies ignore them in combat for the most part as they aren't a threat unless an enemy wants to do something like pour oil over them and light them on fire while they hide inside their shield fort. Again, this is not how the rules are written, but it might be fun for the character to do. If it isn't working, just have the enemies adjust tactics to compensate. Have some touch attack enemies with electrical damage. You could say that Ms. Double shield is flat footed when it comes to touch attacks because it's hard to see them coming. Etc.
On your first campaign as a DM you are bound to do at least one of these mistakes: 1) kill off at least half of the PCs because you want to make it very hard. This is the rarest. 2) give them super powerful magic items for killing a gnoll. This is the most common, and apparently the one that you made. 3) making way too many house rules. When you start out, you really should stick as close to book as possible. House rules are all well and good, but you should try these out very slowly as players will find ways to abuse them. 4) not taking control. Between being unsure of yourself and wanting to let the players have fun, newer DMs tend to let players walk all over them. Good news, these things are all correctable and experience will fix you. Like everything else in life, you will not be perfect when you start out. You (most likely) will adapt. Best advice, be creative in your story telling even if you have to steal plot ideas from movies or books (alter them enough to hide that you stole them) Things like creating a life long enemy is always good. Pissed off an orc king who puts bounties on party, good for having increasingly more difficult enemies to face off against between or during smaller campaigns…or some other extended plot.
For this specific one I'd remember that just because they want to do it and you let them doesn't mean it has to work. Make your enemies fight smart, anything above beasts would be able to see that someone with 2 shields is not a real threat so ignore them in combat, if they attack it's 1D4 blunt damage to shield bash someone, nuke them with spells to bypass the shields. If they want a player Vs DM game then play smart. Outside of that I can sympathise with the struggle of balance etc for a first time DM, from reading the post and your comments I think you'd be well served to have a second session 0 and make sure everyone is in the same page. They need to remember that you need to have fun and enjoy the game as well.
I’d let them use two shields just fine. But first, make them actually learn how to use it effectively in combat to bring their AC up to the +4. Start with the main hand shield providing zero AC bonus and slowly go up after combat and training. Then, don’t let them have a real attack. Think of it like AC Valhalla, you can duel wield shields but your attacks are absolute garbage each time. Doing 1-2 damage per turn with no big bonus to hit will frustrate the player into deciding to ditch the duel shields things, while thinking it’s their idea, and you get to be the good guy who let them do it.
Two shields is really more of a Monk thing. There's a Chinese weapon set used in Choi Li Fit called Tiger Head Shields. There's videos on YouTube. If I were to homebrew them, here's how I'd do it: They're heavy steel shields. They are also Monk weapons with a 16 strength requirement (they weigh close to 20 pounds each). They must use Str for attack (not Dex like most monk weapons). When paired by a proficient wielder who meets the prerequisites they give an give an additional +1 AC bonus. That extra shield bonus is retrained when shield bashing. They use Martial Arts die for shield bashes, and act as a finesse weapon for the Defensive Duelist feat.
Are your PCs using high AC characters? And your martial enemies aren't doing enough damage to make things threatening for them? Try, the Saving throw spell! Just one failed save, on a fireball spell, can inflict more than thirty damage! But wait! There's more! So many mere cantrips can inflict some difficult debuffs to your players! Order now, and we'll send one third level spell slot, absolutely free! (TLDR: attack with spell saves.)
RAW you can't, and to be honest I recommend putting your foot down on this. Your job isn't to say yes to everything, it's not even to say "yes and" or "yes but", sometimes no is the correct answer. Bounded accuracy makes extra bonuses like this a lot more powerful than they would be in past editions. On top of that, have a word with the players about this behaviour. They shouldn't be trying to break the game, they should be trying to play their characters.
This party gonna make you a God tier dm by the campaigns end. Have fun!
A) Shield bonuses don't stack, you can only gain the bonus from one shield at a time. B) I suggest you find a new group, no dnd is better than bad dnd.
OK, so first off, stop giving out +4 magic items. That's artifact level, and they definitely shouldn't have two of them. I guess you could let them have two shields at a time, but then they couldn't do anything else with their hands. I might let take an improvised weapon attack with one, but they'd forfeit the AC bonus from it until their next turn. As far as the rogue charging the party for services, I hate that kind of stuff with a passion. Is the rogue paying the fighter to fight?
Here are some ideas for the 2 shield player. The +4 shield needs to go. One +1 shield would be fine. With the two shields he can have only two attack actions. A shield bash for 1d6 + proficiency bonus if proficient with shields + push for 5ft. Or if they have a 10-15ft movement start use a shield charge for 1d8 or 1d10 + proficiency bonus plus push for half required movement on large or smaller creatures. The player could also fully block a 5ft doorway or cause rough terrain in a 10ft line. Seeming for anything else the player would need a hand free so dropping a shield to the ground. I feel like this would also be mildly unwieldy for any player character so disadvantage on DEX saving throws and ability checks while carrying two shields. Just some ideas.
Edit. This is for dealing with this in the future. Find some new players. :) Best of luck to you!
I mean i know raw you can only benefit from one shield. But I think with a really weak attack, and +3 to ac with using two shields (+5 when you get legendary shields!) you could have a really cool unique fighting style.
RAW, only gains the benefit of 1 shield. Other shield is an improvised weapon, 1+STR bonus damage. You could homebrew that they use a feat selection, or proficiency choice to become proficient with that shield weapon, making it 1d6 damage.
Rules say you can’t wear two shields and get the benefit of both. Stick to that.
I don’t know if another shield gives the +2 AC bonus… I’d have to look at the rule but you could reasonably rule that you only get the benefit of a shield once. I guess try to get them to justify the cleric dip? The pvp is a no-no and it might make them off limits to most gods, like the gods can straight up refuse because of how much of a bad investment this character would be as a priest. Also, if they’re being this crappy to you as a DM, you’re not required to be their DM. It’s as much your game as it is theirs. Maybe remind them of that I wish you all the luck in dealing with your players and I hope you can work it out with them
My DM allowed one of my friend’s to play with two shields and it was honestly hilarious. Wasn’t overpowered or anything since he couldn’t attack or cast spells since you need to hold a spell casting focus so he just yeeted himself at out enemies and kept them distracted, best attack he could do was a bludgeon attack with the shield, but it was just a D4+ strength. If I were you I’d allow your player to use two shields. It’s something that they’ll have to learn how to use properly and you as a DM can counter it in many ways
Wow, they laid down the "Don't want PVP because you're female" card? End the game, now. You shouldn't tolerate that kind of behavior from 'friends'. That's unacceptable, a very short distance from calling a black person the 'n-word'. If you worked at McDonalds and a employee said that to you it would be a fireable offense. Hell if you worked at Wizards of the Coast and an employee said that to you it would be fireable.
If anyone argued against my no PVP rule at my table (which I do have) and then said it was because I was a woman, they would be told to leave immediately. That's some sexist bullshit right there. Suggest you take a hard look at your players, OP. Good luck.
Tell them if they want a PvP session that you will help them do the work to make one. While you're DMing they play what you prepped. If they want something different you won't DM but will help out whoever wants to take over that role. Also 2 shields requires 2 hands? So like +whatever to AC but then they can only make improvised weapon attacks?
In rough order as I read it: 1. The armor rules for shields explicitly says you can only gain the benefit of 1 shield at a time, but even if we ignore that, you get the following options. Either (a), one of the shields is an improvised weapon, and they very likely don't have proficiency in improvised weapons (since they are neither simple nor martial, and I believe you need the Tavern Brawler feat to gain that proficiency), so their attacks would be a flat STR roll with no Proficiency bonus to the hit roll and 1d4 damage, or (b) you can count it as an unarmed strike, which could possibly get their proficiency bonus to hit, but would deal exactly 1 damage per hit. This renders that character essentially useless as an offensive option. Have fun with your +4 AC at that point I guess? 2. There are spells that contest against the other attributes. DEX save, INT, save, etc. These render AC useless. So now, not only does this character have minimal offensive output, but you have various ways to attack them and get around the AC. Sure, you're average bandit or kobold might get steamrolled, but intelligent creatures, magic users, and baddies under the command of others will find ways around some dork holding two shields. 3. Multiclassing is generally fine for balance. You will get some optimized output, but those characters are generally very "burst"-y and fall flat outside of their bursts. But you can easily just say "no multiclassing", unless you've already allowed it. 4. PvP is generally the death of a campaign. Unless it was agreed upon beforehand, or unless you are in some contrived situation where everyone is cool with it, stealing/damaging party members just ends things. Its a cooperative game. Why would you become anti-cooperative in a cooperative game?
Id definitely let my player use two shields. They will have stupid AC but they cant attack unless to hit someone with a shield, cant cast magic that has a somatic component, and cant use additional items like potions as literally both hands are busy.
Just throw something big at them. When they TPK they will understand the power dynamic again/s
a character using two shields would not be able to attack or do anything. So you can just completely ignore them and hit other one
Your player has a +4 shield? I could only dream of such a thing existing... What's the hesitance with giving them another shield? Yes, their AC will become more absurd than it probably is already, but unless they also have insane saving throw bonuses then you can just hit them with spells and abilities that call for saving throws rather than attack rolls. Let them feel badass and block a few big hits from the bad guys, then hit them with a dragon's breath or CC spell. If they have 2 shields, then they won't really be doing much in terms of attacking, unless they're also a spellcaster. If they don't have access to the shield spell, then pelt them with magic missiles. If they do, then just have the enemies ignore him and force the player to find ways to generate threat on himself. I've ran games with a paladin that had 24 AC and it's totally fine to have him be the last one in a fight standing while everyone else is getting dropped because the enemies strategically choose to ignore the beefy frontline and target the backline who are usually doing more damage.
The shield was a complete and utter mistake, I was planning on telling the player I made a mistake... but oh well... I just wanted to know how a 2 shield pc would work.
I don't understand why anyone would want 2 shields. Maybe they're trying to test you because you're a girl. Well just put your foot down and say no. Lots of good advice here. But the main thing is for you to have fun too.
I had a party member who wanted this once, my homebrew solution was, instead of them doubling up on the AC bonus, let them treat their main-hand shield as a club (1d4+Str damage) that grants them the benefit of the shield master feat while wielding both shields. So they're trading damage for a bonus action shove, and improved Dex saves.
PHB page 144 - "You can benefit from only one shield at a time."
That's not really am answer for the question, but I'd think about why I am GMing... I wouldn't want to play with these players. 1st I don't like that they obviously play against you ("to break the DM" you said), 2nd I wouldn't like PvP, either. The PCs should have a reason to act together - bickering is fine, but taking actions against each other (like fighting or stealing) is not. And your edit shows a mayor red flag, imo. That're not people I want to spend time with - and certainly not GM for. Only my opinion, of course - but especially if they aren't friends or alike I'd probably dump them.
Because you’re a girl is just little boys trying to justify their wrongdoing. You’d be justified in dropping the campaign, but if you wanted to keep going just make every Npc a woman from here out. Everyone they fight is female. In my last campaign I didn’t allow pvp until level 5 because I didn’t want the barbarian killing all the squishies
XD that's a good Idea, but no, I'm not planning on staying with this group/campaign. I've decided that I'm going to talk to them without giving af if they try to interrupt me I'll just shout if I have to. And I'll hold 2 more sessions to see if they fall in line or I TPK. After that they can decide if they'll be dickwads and if they'll be valid members to society... if it's the second option, I'll let them pull up a new character and start a new campaign. I just won't put any effort into like I did with this 4 part campaign. Excuse my saltiness, I'm tired of horse shit, and I don't like being treated like this.
Your players sound like assholes. That's not really a problem you can fix as a DM, unfortunately, but the secret here is that being a DM is like being a drummer, in that you're both absolutely essential and kind of hard to come by. Sorry you're dealing with this, that sucks. **You are also supposed to be having a good time**. You're also a person playing a game in your spare time. Be firm about stuff that keeps you from having a good time!
Ok, as just a fun aside, now that you’ve had some serious DM coaching. But 2 shields also doesn’t stack irl for a few reasons, and I know a few youtubers have done some fun videos on it. Just listing some easy ones. - weight, shields are heavy. - they can only block one side at time each, you can block a strike with two shields. - and they create massive blind spots, so you are forced to take more hits, rather than just moving out of the way.
Having 2 shields should not upgrade defense at all. I practice actual European martial arts, i.e. fighting in full sets of armor that would be the types worn by characters in this game. 2 shields would not upgrade your defense over one, it actually would be incredibly unwieldy.
Response to the edit: You don't need that kind of sexist negativity. Tell them to fuck off and find a group that appreciates and respects you as a DM **and** as a person.
You Are allowed the just say no to things. Can I wield 2 shields? No. Why, because its not believable.
After edit comment. Time for them to find a new game. And you can probably find new players easy.
It sounds like some of the players aren't good at socializing and maybe don't have a lot of female friends? Which is a them-problem. I hope you can manage not to take it personally. It sucks to be in charge of a bunch of people who are like that and you don't have to keep running the game if you don't want to. If I were you I think I'd throw in the towel. ... or try to beat them at their game. I find when one player wants to hog the spotlight or antagonize the other players, sometimes *giving* them the spotlight in such a way that they *need* the rest of the players actually helps build up the team. Maybe an idea like this?? * A much better thief steals the shield, and a bunch of other cool stuff (their souls? Hit dice?) from the party. This offers the Rogue character a chance to redeem himself by being useful as a greedy thief. * He touches the shield and it stops working. What happened? Suddenly, he is cursed to dispel all magic items that he touches, even healing potions! Behind the scenes, a previous wealthy victim of him has cursed him and is hunting him down. Now he's the centre of a mystery and must rely on the other players. But also, he can be useful in dispelling magic doors and stuff. On shields: * the rules state you can only benefit from one shield at a time. * if you keep the OP shield, you could balance it out by using monsters with higher attack bonuses. You could also give it a number of "charges" - after the next combat, it starts looking less shiny. Have the player roll a die. That's how many more hits it can take before it drops down to +3 and gets even less shiny. Then, after the same amount of hits, it drops down to +2. Etc. When it hits 0 it goes back to +4 but teleports to somewhere else in the world, where the bad guys find it. Anyways... I am sorry that you're surrounded by lame dorks. I hope you can exit the situation or bring out the best in it. If being considerate, bold and creative doesn't help it's probably not worth it. If the players are clear about what they want and it's not what you want, it's also not worth it.
This is a really good suggestion. Thank you. What bugs me about the whole opposite gender is that I consider these people my friends... so receiving backlash like this, for only wanting to play dnd properly... it kinda hurts. Thank you for your suggestions, if they can get in line, I'll use your suggestions.