Talk:Brawler Shield (5e Equipment)
Mathematically,this weapon is really weak,having disadvantage to hit makes it mathematically on par with a dagger at low ac(up to ac 9),and after that it is outshined by it.so either the damage needs to be buffed or the disadvantage needs to be removed,also the weapon should give an ac bonus (since it being technically a weapon means that it is not considered a shield,and as such it needs to be specified) Vladulenta (talk)
- Recommend removing disadvantage on the attack AND reducing damage. It probably shouldn't do more than a dagger since even then it would be basically strictly better than a dagger (cant be thrown though). Another :balancing option is to give only +1 AC, that along with only dealing 1d4 is probably what I would do in my campaign. 75.46.34.188 23:16, 4 April 2021 (MDT)
Why can't it be better than a dagger? Its meant to be this well designed thing meant for blocking and attacking, better at least than a simple dagger. Also, i believe it should do more than 1d4. User:Bananaoverlord2345 11:59, 22 December 2021
- Well designed or not, anything stronger than a 1d4 starts to call balance into question, namely because this allows a dual wielder to benefit from a shield and dual wielding. Think of it like this.
- A dual wielding build starts with two shortswords, 1d6 damage for each.
- They gain the dual wielding feat, allowing them to use two non-light weapons.
- From this point, they can either go for two longswords(1d8), or take this shield and a longsword(1d8 and 1d4, +2 AC). The closer you get to longsword damage, the more a brawler shield in the mix just becomes the better option, and, of course, there shouldn't just be a better option. --SwankyPants (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2021 (MST)
Thats fair, honestly. I hadn't thought of the dual wielder feat, thanks for bringing that up. I still feel like this should do more than 1d4, but that aspect of the balance makes sense. User:Bananaoverlord2345