Id say he wants to have an unique, shield two hander type class.
Which is cool a guess. Lean into that.
With tests of smithing/designing a new shield let him boost his shield to +1, give it +1 to damage etc. Nothing that pushes it to OP magical levels though.
Then, in the future, maybe let him dabble into magical items designed specifically for him. Like whatever friendpatron the group has who is in a position of power gives them a shield of a champion from the past etc. Or even a blessing from a god of protection (setting dependent, but helm works), or one of his priests.
Sounds nice indeed, but is a +1 enough to make up for the lost damage ? I was thinking of giving him his long sword (single hand) damage as long as he uses his shield with his two hands, would it be too much ?
That would not be over powered.
I would suggest allowing him (as a former smith) modify his shield to incorporate an offensive feature (a spike or a bladed edge) that makes it a 1d6 piercing or slashing weapon or they can shield bash as a 1d4 blunt weapon. No 2 handing required. If you wanted to lean into the 2 handing I would give it the versatile property and move the damage die up 1 tier when used 2 handed.
Why is no one saying the obvious answer?
Switch weapon hands.
It's what would happen in real life with injuries like that. You can have a whole storyline with him training to use his other hand as effectively as his main one. That would work well for role-playing, like say going through whole days or training sessions with his dominant hand bound by ropes so he's not tempted to use it, and the unexpected complications that may come with it. Heck, Game of Thrones got a bunch of good story development when Jamie Lannister lost his right hand and had to go through something similar.
You can also impose a kind of test on him every time he tries to use his off hand for the time being (like say making a Sleight Of Hand check so he can attack or use a skill with his off-hand without a penalty.) The penalty test would remain in effect until he gives up either a class feature or an ability score increase to gain the fighting style Two Weapon Fighting, after which he can use his other hand normally.
This is good except for giving up a class feature. They're not doing two weapon fighting, so they don't need to pick up the fighting style. This sounds like the kind of player who would want the penalty until it feels right to lose it. But since they're only getting rid of a self-imposed massive nerf to their character, they can just lose the penalty after a story beat that makes sense.
I would suggest taking a look at the shield master feat
"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you.
If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect."
Could fill some of the niches hes after and could homebrew something like 1d4 damage on a dex save when doing the push, or perhaps have different options they could learn to do with the shoeld.
I'm all for roleplay, but this is just silly.
Switch your weapon to the other hand. Talk about how you're having to learn to use your non-dominant arm because of the injury.
I’ll definitely ask him about how he would like to solve his issue, but so far I’m getting the feeling that he would rather just focus on bettering his shield mastery to replace attacking with a classic weapon
I'm all for being The Shield Attacker (bladed shields, throwable returning shields, dual-wielding shields, mirror shields, shields with a trampoline trap on them, sticky surface shields), but usually those players are very clear about wanting to be just that from the start.
I think self-enforced limits like this become weird when they require extra work from the DM just to make up for the made-up limit. Especially when it has the potential to have someone else in the party be 'hey, I use a shield too, can I have my usual weapon *and* one of those special shields?'
But, if he truly feels it's an important gimmick, and doesn't want to have his character arc involve fixing it (craft a cyber arm? replace it with a troll arm? take combat drugs to dull the pain?)...
* special shield is only special when two-handed (should limit other people's interest in using them)
* he *has* to get proficiency to attack rolls with it, this is the biggest factor for any relevancy
* making the shield damage die equal to the usual one-handed 1d8 is the easiest approach, but then it is *the exact same* as actually just using a weapon, which might be unsatisfying (could craft it to do 1d4+2 damage for same average, but worse for crits)
* instead of that damage equivalency, could apply an extra weapon mastery effect (from the new edition), to be different from someone else just swapping weapons (if an effect seems too much for every hit, can say it only triggers if the attack roll is an odd value)
Spikes on the shield to increase damage.
Let him find, in the future, a magical shield with spikes that proficiency bonus/long rat lets him topple opponents (max up until large size) he charges of failed strength saving throw.
Crystals/runes/whatever that can be socketed into weapons and armour to add elemental damage or resistances (not the actual 50% less damage, maybe a fixed amount of damage reduces from attacks).
And of course in time the classic +X to hit.
A good idea would be a quest to find the "mystic shield of [insert your favourite dwarven deity]". As base it has spikes and a +1.
Over time with leveling and the appropriate rites you can have the player unlock additional powers as you see fit. ;)
What is the issue with the character being weaker though? If you want to RP a flaw, let it be a flaw. A flaw without consequences is not a flaw.
Yes, a character with a crippling injury won't be as effective a fighter as one without such an injury. Let him figure out a solution; maybe he switches to ranged weapons or grappling, maybe he tries to find a healer for his arm (side quest!), maybe he gets a mechanical arm from an artificer, or a super light sword that is a cursed item, or something like that.
If you give your character a flaw but have it have upsides, you are simply playing Daredevil who is """""blind"""". Now, if you want to play Daredevil, that's fine too, of course.
>What is the issue with the character being weaker though?
Mainly, that DnD is a team activity. From an RP perspective, it's totally fine. But this is a "Game" too, and each PC's literal life depends on the effectiveness of every PC in the party.
Combat assumes a number of PCs operating at a level of competence and effectiveness. In reality this will vary situationally and depending on a given player's tactical ability, so there's wiggle room baked in. But we assume every player *wants* to "win," and makes both creation decisions and action decisions from that basis, to some degree.
But "flaws" like this aren't mechanically supported in the character system, they are a conscious choice by a player to reduce their competence and effectiveness for the sake of RP. This example is basically a less severe version of the "pacifist" character who either doesn't contribute anything in battle, or refuses to target enemies at all, or at least refuses to deal direct damage, depending on how strict the player's definition of "pacifism" is. The type of character who, when brought up online as a cool idea, is commonly met with "Bad idea, don't do that" responses.
This RP injury is being played to similar effect: now the group is purposely operating at lower effectiveness than the system intends. The DM can work around this, but it doesn't change that one player is visibly refusing to pull their expected "fair share." Whether or not the DM is taking this into account, combat **is** more likely to turn perilous, PCs **are** more likely to die, than if the player had just made a "normally effective" character. Arguably the biggest fail state in the game is PC death, and combat is far and away the most likely time for that to happen. "Can't fight as good" is a way bigger problem than "struggles with [x] non-combat activity." And making a character flawed in this way is almost an implicit statement that "I don't care if my fellow players suffer the consequences of my decisions," regardless of if that's actually true or just a side effect of an ignorant and well-intentioned mistake.
Granted, not every player cares as much about this, so for some groups, the RP value of this might outweigh the concern. The idea of a side quest to find a solution is great, and if nobody cares then it's all systems go, full send. But even then, if my character dies on the way to that solution, or worse, before the side quest begins, it's going to be really hard to not blame the guy who is currently not fighting on the level that the game's rules expect him to. Maybe my character would have died anyway, but we'll never know for sure. Certainly, somewhere along the way, if the player hadn't self-imposed this weakness, he would have made an attack instead of dropping his weapon, or done more damage attacking with his weapon instead of his shield, or the cleric wouldn't have needed to use that spell slot. An enemy would die sooner and get one fewer turns, an ally would spend resources at a slightly slower pace. There are probably multiple small events that add up over an encounter or an adventuring day, and that might have been enough for the tide of battle to change to the point that my character would still be here right now.
The conclusion is that my character's death, at least in part, is that player's fault. It might be an imperfect or inaccurate conclusion, and not everyone will come to it, but plenty of people will, and there is at least an element of reason and logic to it, it's justifiable to feel that way regardless of whether it's "right." From an outside (DM) perspective, the tension and stress is a highly undesired potential outcome that is easy to avoid entirely by changing the starting conditions. Make competent characters and you're way less likely to face that problem.
I totally see your point. In one of our games, we joke that we have 2 combat effective characters, and a warlock.
The warlock decided to focus on ritual spells and only ritual spells. He has tons of them, but the only realistic way for him to deal damage is using Armor of Agathys and getting hit. It is starting to get a little frustrating at times.
On the other hand, having a toolbox is really helpful outside of combat.
I do agree this is an issue that should be solved, or at worst have the consequences be for the character himself, not the others. Maybe take damage to keep fighting or a level of exhaustion or something.
But I am also somewhat tolerant of a group of misfits who adventure together despite their flaws and challenges. We're not Seal Team Six, we're a bunch of farm hands who picked up swords and went for a long walk.
Over time, the flaw should be fixed for sure. I am quite enamored with the idea of a mechanical arm made by an artificer myself. This is a meaningful side quest to find and get it and it gives new plot hooks or problems to work off of, like yeah you are no longer going to be able to be incognito and you better hope the enemies don't have Heat Metal.
On the other hand, you can grab things out of fires or acid pools, etc. So it has upsides and downsides.
I would say "Okay you do that" and then not change anything mechanically.
Keep rolling normally, keep doing weapon damage, just "with the shield". Literally free flavor.
I’m glad this was said, sometimes these things get overthought. If you don’t want this to be an actual flaw, just flavor it and move along. The character makes a shield and sharpens one edge.
If you want to power it up, he can start finding runes or magic gems in the stone that can be socketed into the shield. Make a smithing check, and it has to take up some downtime to accomplish.
If he attaches spikes to the shield, you could always give his shield the attack stats of a dagger. Makes it a weaker but reasonable attack. Then if you wanted, you could give some kind of fail possibility on the spikes - for example, if an enemy attack against him falls under his AC (thus hitting the shield), roll a d20 and on a 1 the spike breaks off, to be repaired during a long rest
Use the improvised weapon rules for the shield for a while, then as he leans more into the shield bash fighting style, I would just combine the effects of Warhammer and shield into one item once he becomes "proficient" with it. 1d8 versatile(1d10) bludgeoning damage, +2 bonus to AC. A +1 version would contribute to both the attack and defense. It's a cool item, and since he will lack the use of magical weapons it's not going to unbalance anything
Making the shield do one damage die lower (not less, *lower*, like from a d8 to a d6) than his main weapon, and maybe let him since he’s a blacksmith work to improve it in downtime, such as maybe adding spikes for piercing damage, and then continuing to buff it like maybe once per day can possibly poison an enemy (DC 8+Prof. Bonus+Con) or allowing allies to take an action to buff the shield with cantrips like making it deal fire damage if an ally burns an action casting firebolt at them (for no damage because that would go sideways fast)
I might suggest:
Start combat with a versatile weapon in the non-injured hand, shield buckled on the injured arm. After some number of attacks from enemies getting close to hitting (a roll within 2 of their AC), they drop the shield instead and use their shield arm to support their weapon. More damage, but increasing their susceptibility to damage by losing the +2 to AC.
This is largely because shields as weapons are a bit hard to balance correctly.
You could have the party meet an Artificer NPC that could make some enchanted items for him. The player is a smith, so he could craft the frames/upgrades, and the Artificer could infuse/enchant them. A few ideas:
A support armature for his weak arm that takes load off his arm while in use. It could be upgraded to have a locking gauntlet to fix his weapon into.
An infusion on his armor similar to the Armorer's armor that allows it to take over for lost limbs.
Upgrades to the shield to turn it into his main weapon. Initially spikes or blades to mimic a dagger or shortsword. Then ramp it up as he levels to have things like a telescoping blade in the housing to mimic a spear, or a rotating saw blade around the edge of the shield. Or even some tanks of Alchemist's Fire to give him a single-shot 15ft flamethrower. The possibilities are limitless.
Just straight up dropping the weapon after two attacks is way too extreme a way to rp a lingering injury. Not only is it purposefully handicapping your own effectiveness but it’s out of character for any character who would choose to be an adventurer in spite of an old injury, a character like that would grit their teeth and fight through the pain even if they were less effective rather than going “owie my hand hurwts.”
What I would do as a DM is implement a crit fumble rule specifically for that player. When they roll a natural 1 on any attack roll using their injured hand they must make a DC 12 constitution saving throw or drop their weapon, on a success they are not disarmed but suffer a -1d4 penalty to attack rolls using that hand for 3 battle rounds.
This way the character’s injury won’t be a major factor in every fight while adding suspense to the roleplay, making it feel as though their old injury could come back to bite them at any moment rather than knowing for a fact that they will drop their weapon in combat. The saving throw also adds tension, making the player feel like they have agency and allowing for exciting moments where they pass the save and fight through the pain to get that last hit in.
This will make the player feel more connected to their character, as the character’s struggle becomes their own, feeling the same highs and lows that the character feels by relinquishing their control over this injury to the dice. It becomes something them and their character are both fighting against rather than something that they imposed on their character arbitrarily.
Simple answer, give him an interrupt ability where he can share part of his ac with another character as a readied action, and give him an additional +2 ac when using his shield with 2 hands
There's a spell for that arm injury😅 but also there are shields that had spikes in them. Maybe if an enemy melee attacks him and it's within 3 of matching his AC it'll do a d4 damage or something.
It’s cool and flavorful the first time or two it happens. After that i assume the rest of the table is tired of it.
Either homebrew a feat or mechanic to give him so he can attack with his shield. Or switch weapon hands. Or get a quest going to find a brace or magic item that makes it so he doesn’t have to do this anymore.
With the rocks stuff… again. It’s cute the first couple times. But for heaven’s sake, that would get frustrating as a fellow player.
Id say he wants to have an unique, shield two hander type class. Which is cool a guess. Lean into that. With tests of smithing/designing a new shield let him boost his shield to +1, give it +1 to damage etc. Nothing that pushes it to OP magical levels though. Then, in the future, maybe let him dabble into magical items designed specifically for him. Like whatever friendpatron the group has who is in a position of power gives them a shield of a champion from the past etc. Or even a blessing from a god of protection (setting dependent, but helm works), or one of his priests.
Sounds nice indeed, but is a +1 enough to make up for the lost damage ? I was thinking of giving him his long sword (single hand) damage as long as he uses his shield with his two hands, would it be too much ?
No, i think tjats also fine.
That would not be over powered. I would suggest allowing him (as a former smith) modify his shield to incorporate an offensive feature (a spike or a bladed edge) that makes it a 1d6 piercing or slashing weapon or they can shield bash as a 1d4 blunt weapon. No 2 handing required. If you wanted to lean into the 2 handing I would give it the versatile property and move the damage die up 1 tier when used 2 handed.
DID I HEAR A ROCK AND STONE?
We fight for Rock and Stone!
Good bot
Why is no one saying the obvious answer? Switch weapon hands. It's what would happen in real life with injuries like that. You can have a whole storyline with him training to use his other hand as effectively as his main one. That would work well for role-playing, like say going through whole days or training sessions with his dominant hand bound by ropes so he's not tempted to use it, and the unexpected complications that may come with it. Heck, Game of Thrones got a bunch of good story development when Jamie Lannister lost his right hand and had to go through something similar. You can also impose a kind of test on him every time he tries to use his off hand for the time being (like say making a Sleight Of Hand check so he can attack or use a skill with his off-hand without a penalty.) The penalty test would remain in effect until he gives up either a class feature or an ability score increase to gain the fighting style Two Weapon Fighting, after which he can use his other hand normally.
This is good except for giving up a class feature. They're not doing two weapon fighting, so they don't need to pick up the fighting style. This sounds like the kind of player who would want the penalty until it feels right to lose it. But since they're only getting rid of a self-imposed massive nerf to their character, they can just lose the penalty after a story beat that makes sense.
If that's the way they want to play it, sure.
I would suggest taking a look at the shield master feat "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield. If you aren't incapacitated, you can add your shield's AC bonus to any Dexterity saving throw you make against a spell or other harmful effect that targets only you. If you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you can use your reaction to take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, interposing your shield between yourself and the source of the effect." Could fill some of the niches hes after and could homebrew something like 1d4 damage on a dex save when doing the push, or perhaps have different options they could learn to do with the shoeld.
Thanks, interesting things to look at if he wants to pursue his shield focus !!
I'm all for roleplay, but this is just silly. Switch your weapon to the other hand. Talk about how you're having to learn to use your non-dominant arm because of the injury.
I’ll definitely ask him about how he would like to solve his issue, but so far I’m getting the feeling that he would rather just focus on bettering his shield mastery to replace attacking with a classic weapon
I'm all for being The Shield Attacker (bladed shields, throwable returning shields, dual-wielding shields, mirror shields, shields with a trampoline trap on them, sticky surface shields), but usually those players are very clear about wanting to be just that from the start. I think self-enforced limits like this become weird when they require extra work from the DM just to make up for the made-up limit. Especially when it has the potential to have someone else in the party be 'hey, I use a shield too, can I have my usual weapon *and* one of those special shields?' But, if he truly feels it's an important gimmick, and doesn't want to have his character arc involve fixing it (craft a cyber arm? replace it with a troll arm? take combat drugs to dull the pain?)... * special shield is only special when two-handed (should limit other people's interest in using them) * he *has* to get proficiency to attack rolls with it, this is the biggest factor for any relevancy * making the shield damage die equal to the usual one-handed 1d8 is the easiest approach, but then it is *the exact same* as actually just using a weapon, which might be unsatisfying (could craft it to do 1d4+2 damage for same average, but worse for crits) * instead of that damage equivalency, could apply an extra weapon mastery effect (from the new edition), to be different from someone else just swapping weapons (if an effect seems too much for every hit, can say it only triggers if the attack roll is an odd value)
Thank you this is incredible input ! 🙏 He’ll be glad I have so many options to present
You can't switch your Weapon to another hand because his character wields a shield.
You use. The shield. In the less good hand.
But switching the shield to another hand requires two actions, right?
A Bonus Action to unequip the Shield and an Action to equipo IIRC, so a whole turn. Not as bad, but not worth at all.
Unequip a shield requires a action.
omg I can't
Spikes on the shield to increase damage. Let him find, in the future, a magical shield with spikes that proficiency bonus/long rat lets him topple opponents (max up until large size) he charges of failed strength saving throw. Crystals/runes/whatever that can be socketed into weapons and armour to add elemental damage or resistances (not the actual 50% less damage, maybe a fixed amount of damage reduces from attacks). And of course in time the classic +X to hit. A good idea would be a quest to find the "mystic shield of [insert your favourite dwarven deity]". As base it has spikes and a +1. Over time with leveling and the appropriate rites you can have the player unlock additional powers as you see fit. ;)
What is the issue with the character being weaker though? If you want to RP a flaw, let it be a flaw. A flaw without consequences is not a flaw. Yes, a character with a crippling injury won't be as effective a fighter as one without such an injury. Let him figure out a solution; maybe he switches to ranged weapons or grappling, maybe he tries to find a healer for his arm (side quest!), maybe he gets a mechanical arm from an artificer, or a super light sword that is a cursed item, or something like that. If you give your character a flaw but have it have upsides, you are simply playing Daredevil who is """""blind"""". Now, if you want to play Daredevil, that's fine too, of course.
>What is the issue with the character being weaker though? Mainly, that DnD is a team activity. From an RP perspective, it's totally fine. But this is a "Game" too, and each PC's literal life depends on the effectiveness of every PC in the party. Combat assumes a number of PCs operating at a level of competence and effectiveness. In reality this will vary situationally and depending on a given player's tactical ability, so there's wiggle room baked in. But we assume every player *wants* to "win," and makes both creation decisions and action decisions from that basis, to some degree. But "flaws" like this aren't mechanically supported in the character system, they are a conscious choice by a player to reduce their competence and effectiveness for the sake of RP. This example is basically a less severe version of the "pacifist" character who either doesn't contribute anything in battle, or refuses to target enemies at all, or at least refuses to deal direct damage, depending on how strict the player's definition of "pacifism" is. The type of character who, when brought up online as a cool idea, is commonly met with "Bad idea, don't do that" responses. This RP injury is being played to similar effect: now the group is purposely operating at lower effectiveness than the system intends. The DM can work around this, but it doesn't change that one player is visibly refusing to pull their expected "fair share." Whether or not the DM is taking this into account, combat **is** more likely to turn perilous, PCs **are** more likely to die, than if the player had just made a "normally effective" character. Arguably the biggest fail state in the game is PC death, and combat is far and away the most likely time for that to happen. "Can't fight as good" is a way bigger problem than "struggles with [x] non-combat activity." And making a character flawed in this way is almost an implicit statement that "I don't care if my fellow players suffer the consequences of my decisions," regardless of if that's actually true or just a side effect of an ignorant and well-intentioned mistake. Granted, not every player cares as much about this, so for some groups, the RP value of this might outweigh the concern. The idea of a side quest to find a solution is great, and if nobody cares then it's all systems go, full send. But even then, if my character dies on the way to that solution, or worse, before the side quest begins, it's going to be really hard to not blame the guy who is currently not fighting on the level that the game's rules expect him to. Maybe my character would have died anyway, but we'll never know for sure. Certainly, somewhere along the way, if the player hadn't self-imposed this weakness, he would have made an attack instead of dropping his weapon, or done more damage attacking with his weapon instead of his shield, or the cleric wouldn't have needed to use that spell slot. An enemy would die sooner and get one fewer turns, an ally would spend resources at a slightly slower pace. There are probably multiple small events that add up over an encounter or an adventuring day, and that might have been enough for the tide of battle to change to the point that my character would still be here right now. The conclusion is that my character's death, at least in part, is that player's fault. It might be an imperfect or inaccurate conclusion, and not everyone will come to it, but plenty of people will, and there is at least an element of reason and logic to it, it's justifiable to feel that way regardless of whether it's "right." From an outside (DM) perspective, the tension and stress is a highly undesired potential outcome that is easy to avoid entirely by changing the starting conditions. Make competent characters and you're way less likely to face that problem.
I totally see your point. In one of our games, we joke that we have 2 combat effective characters, and a warlock. The warlock decided to focus on ritual spells and only ritual spells. He has tons of them, but the only realistic way for him to deal damage is using Armor of Agathys and getting hit. It is starting to get a little frustrating at times. On the other hand, having a toolbox is really helpful outside of combat. I do agree this is an issue that should be solved, or at worst have the consequences be for the character himself, not the others. Maybe take damage to keep fighting or a level of exhaustion or something. But I am also somewhat tolerant of a group of misfits who adventure together despite their flaws and challenges. We're not Seal Team Six, we're a bunch of farm hands who picked up swords and went for a long walk. Over time, the flaw should be fixed for sure. I am quite enamored with the idea of a mechanical arm made by an artificer myself. This is a meaningful side quest to find and get it and it gives new plot hooks or problems to work off of, like yeah you are no longer going to be able to be incognito and you better hope the enemies don't have Heat Metal. On the other hand, you can grab things out of fires or acid pools, etc. So it has upsides and downsides.
Good suggestions, I’ll consider them in the discussion we will have !
I would say "Okay you do that" and then not change anything mechanically. Keep rolling normally, keep doing weapon damage, just "with the shield". Literally free flavor.
True. He's going to have the shield bonus regardless, so just give him longsword damage.
I’m glad this was said, sometimes these things get overthought. If you don’t want this to be an actual flaw, just flavor it and move along. The character makes a shield and sharpens one edge. If you want to power it up, he can start finding runes or magic gems in the stone that can be socketed into the shield. Make a smithing check, and it has to take up some downtime to accomplish.
If he attaches spikes to the shield, you could always give his shield the attack stats of a dagger. Makes it a weaker but reasonable attack. Then if you wanted, you could give some kind of fail possibility on the spikes - for example, if an enemy attack against him falls under his AC (thus hitting the shield), roll a d20 and on a 1 the spike breaks off, to be repaired during a long rest
Thanks I like this addition with the chance to break the spikes !
Use the improvised weapon rules for the shield for a while, then as he leans more into the shield bash fighting style, I would just combine the effects of Warhammer and shield into one item once he becomes "proficient" with it. 1d8 versatile(1d10) bludgeoning damage, +2 bonus to AC. A +1 version would contribute to both the attack and defense. It's a cool item, and since he will lack the use of magical weapons it's not going to unbalance anything
I like those stats, thanks, I’ll keep it an option
Making the shield do one damage die lower (not less, *lower*, like from a d8 to a d6) than his main weapon, and maybe let him since he’s a blacksmith work to improve it in downtime, such as maybe adding spikes for piercing damage, and then continuing to buff it like maybe once per day can possibly poison an enemy (DC 8+Prof. Bonus+Con) or allowing allies to take an action to buff the shield with cantrips like making it deal fire damage if an ally burns an action casting firebolt at them (for no damage because that would go sideways fast)
Fun ideas thanks !
He can also put a sharpened metal edge around the shield in addition to the spikes giving him more different attack moves with the shield.
I might suggest: Start combat with a versatile weapon in the non-injured hand, shield buckled on the injured arm. After some number of attacks from enemies getting close to hitting (a roll within 2 of their AC), they drop the shield instead and use their shield arm to support their weapon. More damage, but increasing their susceptibility to damage by losing the +2 to AC. This is largely because shields as weapons are a bit hard to balance correctly.
You could have the party meet an Artificer NPC that could make some enchanted items for him. The player is a smith, so he could craft the frames/upgrades, and the Artificer could infuse/enchant them. A few ideas: A support armature for his weak arm that takes load off his arm while in use. It could be upgraded to have a locking gauntlet to fix his weapon into. An infusion on his armor similar to the Armorer's armor that allows it to take over for lost limbs. Upgrades to the shield to turn it into his main weapon. Initially spikes or blades to mimic a dagger or shortsword. Then ramp it up as he levels to have things like a telescoping blade in the housing to mimic a spear, or a rotating saw blade around the edge of the shield. Or even some tanks of Alchemist's Fire to give him a single-shot 15ft flamethrower. The possibilities are limitless.
Just straight up dropping the weapon after two attacks is way too extreme a way to rp a lingering injury. Not only is it purposefully handicapping your own effectiveness but it’s out of character for any character who would choose to be an adventurer in spite of an old injury, a character like that would grit their teeth and fight through the pain even if they were less effective rather than going “owie my hand hurwts.” What I would do as a DM is implement a crit fumble rule specifically for that player. When they roll a natural 1 on any attack roll using their injured hand they must make a DC 12 constitution saving throw or drop their weapon, on a success they are not disarmed but suffer a -1d4 penalty to attack rolls using that hand for 3 battle rounds. This way the character’s injury won’t be a major factor in every fight while adding suspense to the roleplay, making it feel as though their old injury could come back to bite them at any moment rather than knowing for a fact that they will drop their weapon in combat. The saving throw also adds tension, making the player feel like they have agency and allowing for exciting moments where they pass the save and fight through the pain to get that last hit in. This will make the player feel more connected to their character, as the character’s struggle becomes their own, feeling the same highs and lows that the character feels by relinquishing their control over this injury to the dice. It becomes something them and their character are both fighting against rather than something that they imposed on their character arbitrarily.
Simple answer, give him an interrupt ability where he can share part of his ac with another character as a readied action, and give him an additional +2 ac when using his shield with 2 hands
There's a spell for that arm injury😅 but also there are shields that had spikes in them. Maybe if an enemy melee attacks him and it's within 3 of matching his AC it'll do a d4 damage or something.
It’s cool and flavorful the first time or two it happens. After that i assume the rest of the table is tired of it. Either homebrew a feat or mechanic to give him so he can attack with his shield. Or switch weapon hands. Or get a quest going to find a brace or magic item that makes it so he doesn’t have to do this anymore. With the rocks stuff… again. It’s cute the first couple times. But for heaven’s sake, that would get frustrating as a fellow player.