The Shield: Rule Tweaks

C&C discussion. Fantasy roleplaying.
New products, general questions, the rules, laws, and the chaos.
Wulfgarn

Post by Wulfgarn »

I have done a fair bit of fighting with and with out shields and know there value well... Itis also said that many knights would surrender if they lost thier shields.... In a dragon magizine article back in the 80's they did a quick study and found that in single combat something like 65% of blows were deflected by the shield.

The first thing to do when looing at the shield is actually to take a step back and loook at the game design itself.

C&C is a rules light game.

You need to decide what type of game you wnat to run.

Armor should absorb damage and Shield should deflect it would be my take on it were I to try and run a realistic game.

Hit points? No, hity points would be out.

The trick I think is to balance things in a way that nod to or poke at a semblance of realism while maintaining the fun and exciment of the game.

Sheild parries and all that can make the game take much longer and make magic soi much more powerful.

So when sitting down to design what you want for your game you need to keepo in mind how it will affect all the other aspects of the game.

I am working on my house rules and have been kicking around all kinds of ideas.

I like the idea of cover for shield use... I like the idea of deflection a little better, but am not sure the best way to go.

At a minimum I think shields should +2 or +3 to the AC.

I am also looking at using the Quality rules from Green Ronins TheBlack Company that allow players to design items with different qualities that are not magickal...

I amn also considering doing away with the base numerical bonuses added to armor and weapons but instead having magic as applied to weapons and armor be all about powers

anyway I am rambling

boxcornersdiety
Ungern
Posts: 69
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:00 am

Re: The Shield: Rule Tweaks

Post by boxcornersdiety »

PIperdog wrote:
I really was unhappy with D&D way back in the 80s for how unimportant shield use was. A measly +1 on AC? That's a joke right? Anyone who studies the trained use of a shield in combat or has competed in full contact reenactments will tell you how insanely important it is.

I have chosen as a house rule to allow the combat oriented classes to use the Cover rules on pg 118 in the PHB. These rules are primarily for AC bonuses against missles, but I adapted them to shields. If the size of the shield covers 1/4 of your body, you get a +2 to AC, if it covers 1/2 your body, you get a +4 to AC, and a tower shield that covers 3/4 of your body grants a +6. This assumes the individual is trained to use a shield; non-combat classes recieve only the standard +1 (commoners, wizards, etc).

This guy is crazy you may say. This is an unbalancing rule, some may cry. Everyone will want to carry a shield if you put that rule in, you may bellow. Good Lord Man! Exactly. No warrior in his right mind would do without a good shield, unless they dared to expose themselves only to wield mighty two handed weapons.

One way to mollify the effect of the cover bonuses would be to rule that the cover penalties apply both ways, so a shield that grants +2 AC for cover also gives you a -2 AC to hit. The idea here is that a shield can be used in a 'passive' mode where it grants only a +1 AC, or can be used in an 'active' mode with a much greater benifit to AC and a corresponding lower chance to hit. You might even allow someone with a larger shield (+4/+6) to choose which bonus and penalty to use in a given situation.

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Wulfgarn wrote:
I have done a fair bit of fighting with and with out shields and know there value well... Itis also said that many knights would surrender if they lost thier shields.... In a dragon magizine article back in the 80's they did a quick study and found that in single combat something like 65% of blows were deflected by the shield.

I would be interested to hear who says that.
Wulfgarn wrote:
The first thing to do when looing at the shield is actually to take a step back and loook at the game design itself.

C&C is a rules light game.

You need to decide what type of game you wnat to run.

Also, one of its strengths is the degree of backwards compatability. If you significantly alter the degree to which Shields affect Armour Class, you alter a lot of the 'to hit chances'. Orcs with Shields suddenly become that bit more unhittable at Level 1, etc... That is why I favour the idea of a parallel Armour Class.
Wulfgarn wrote:
Armor should absorb damage and Shield should deflect it would be my take on it were I to try and run a realistic game.

Hit points? No, hity points would be out.

The problem with treating Armour chiefly as Damage Reduction is that the idea is built on the assumption that all blows impact armour and that the combatant is more or less 'covered'. Bypassing armour is more effective than trying to penetrate it. Furthermore, it adds a bit of an 'arms race' aspect into the game, with many weapons suffering a significant reduction in effectiveness.

For my part, I treat Armour as mainly AC and partly DR. Medium Armour (AC +4-6) has DR 1, Heavy Armour has DR 2 (AC +7-9).
Wulfgarn wrote:
The trick I think is to balance things in a way that nod to or poke at a semblance of realism while maintaining the fun and exciment of the game.

Sheild parries and all that can make the game take much longer and make magic soi much more powerful.

So when sitting down to design what you want for your game you need to keepo in mind how it will affect all the other aspects of the game.

Yep, speed of play is important, and it is important to bear in mind that everything you add to PCs applies also to NPCs and Monsters.

Not sure why you think they make magic more powerful, though.
Wulfgarn wrote:
I am working on my house rules and have been kicking around all kinds of ideas.

I like the idea of cover for shield use... I like the idea of deflection a little better, but am not sure the best way to go.

At a minimum I think shields should +2 or +3 to the AC.

I think that such high bonuses run the risk of rendering other modes of combat obsolete and have a huge impact on Armour choice and hit probabilities. I wouldn't be inclined to go any further han D20 does, making Small Shields +1 AC and Large Shields +2 AC. In my opinion, in order to keep 'number creep' down the advantage that Shields provide shouldn't be expressed as additional bonuses, but as an overlapping advantage.

In terms of 'historical lip service', it's important to recall that Shields seem to virtually disappear off the battlefield in the later middle ages; for all their value, they were not indispenable.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

Watching the 300 gives me an urge to draw up a Shield using fighter set of rules.

Considering how big and thick the shields look in the movie, and how buff all the Spartan warriors were (in the movie anyways) the first thing that comes to mind is having a minimum STR requirement on top of being Prime. 16 is what has been jumping out in my mind.

Then going the "cover" route. The shield counts as various degrees of cover, like total cover in a "full defense" situation, like when the Spartans hid from the arrows and the explosives.

However, I don't see shields working nearly as well for someone in heavy armors. Maybe with medium armors. I definitely see shields working with the lite armors.

One thing that would make shields of more interest is allowing them to give "cover" bonuses against missile type attacks. Small shield give "1/4 cover". medium shields give "1/2 cover" and Large shields give "3/4 cover". Something like the Pavis or Spartan shields give "Full cover". So you would have a +2, +4, +6 and +10 AC bonus progression.

I am now also thinking that using the Shield gives you a basic +1 AC bonus, but fighter types can "give up" combat effectiveness for more defense by swapping out a BtH for 2 more points to be added to their shield bonus. Maxing the exchange out 3 BtH for +6 to AC.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Treebore wrote:
I am now also thinking that using the Shield gives you a basic +1 AC bonus, but fighter types can "give up" combat effectiveness for more defense by swapping out a BtH for 2 more points to be added to their shield bonus. Maxing the exchange out 3 BtH for +6 to AC.

Don't make it 1:1 or Strength will become the new Dexterity. I allow the 'Defensive Fighting' rule from D20 1e, as well as the reverse 'Offensive Fighting'; I also allow them to work by halves [i.e. -2 AB, +1 AC or -4 AB, +2 AC)
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Mythago

Post by Mythago »

IIRC the figters complete book had an option for weapon proficiency fighting style : something like +1 ac bonus for a weapon slot - i always liked the old AD&D weapon prof slots stuff - gaves lots of useful but simple crunch to weapon use and fighting styles

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

The Complete Fighter's Handbook 'Weapon and Shield Fighting Style' actually introduced the concept of 'Active Parries' to AD&D, which is to say a Saving Throw versus an Attack.

However, the Skills and Powers 'Shield Proficiency' rules hugely increased the AC benefit of Shields:

Buckler +2 AC

Small Shield +3 AC

Medium Shield +4 AC

Body Shield +5 AC

So, a First Level Fighter with mail armour and proficient in the use of a medium shield had an AD&D AC of 1 (C&C AC 19) against up to three opponents.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Anyone have rules for using a shield as a surfboard?

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

serleran wrote:
Anyone have rules for using a shield as a surfboard?

Yes, its a CL 10 SIEGE check.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

Against? CL 10 SIEGE check is not enough information. Is it Dexterity? Strength? Charisma?

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

serleran wrote:
Against? CL 10 SIEGE check is not enough information. Is it Dexterity? Strength? Charisma?

DEX based. Sorry, thought that was too obvious.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Dexterity based? I thought it was Charisma based. Oh well, live and learn.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

Matthew wrote:
Dexterity based? I thought it was Charisma based. Oh well, live and learn.

No, the CHA check is to look darn cool while surfing on a shield.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

Wulfgarn

Post by Wulfgarn »

Matthew wrote:
I would be interested to hear who says that.
I do not have the article but will try to find it- I remeber there being a few photos of a man and a woman fighting - ahhh ill find it



Also, one of its strengths is the degree of backwards compatability. If you significantly alter the degree to which Shields affect Armour Class, you alter a lot of the 'to hit chances'. Orcs with Shields suddenly become that bit more unhittable at Level 1, etc... That is why I favour the idea of a parallel Armour Class.
Can you explain Parallel Armor class for me



The problem with treating Armour chiefly as Damage Reduction is that the idea is built on the assumption that all blows impact armour and that the combatant is more or less 'covered'. Bypassing armour is more effective than trying to penetrate it. Furthermore, it adds a bit of an 'arms race' aspect into the game, with many weapons suffering a significant reduction in effectiveness.

For my part, I treat Armour as mainly AC and partly DR. Medium Armour (AC +4-6) has DR 1, Heavy Armour has DR 2 (AC +7-9).
Its funny - but in our FR game the DM wanted to add some DR to armor that is E/C and that is exactly what he set up.

I played in a game (3e heavily modifeid) that swwitched to armor as DR

The way it worked was all Attacks were based off of the Touch attack and if you were able to Hit then armor counted as DR so a Chain Shirt was DR4.... Now for Finesse Fighters- we simply used the rules as they were originally written -- I think there was a minor mod. to it though.



Yep, speed of play is important, and it is important to bear in mind that everything you add to PCs applies also to NPCs and Monsters.

Not sure why you think they make magic more powerful, though.
Ahhhh- Magic becomes more powerful because the fighters become less effective and Magic has been unchanged thereby giving it a boost up in effectiveness--- That auto hitting Magic missile is that much more important etc.


I think that such high bonuses run the risk of rendering other modes of combat obsolete and have a huge impact on Armour choice and hit probabilities. I wouldn't be inclined to go any further han D20 does, making Small Shields +1 AC and Large Shields +2 AC. In my opinion, in order to keep 'number creep' down the advantage that Shields provide shouldn't be expressed as additional bonuses, but as an overlapping advantage.

In terms of 'historical lip service', it's important to recall that Shields seem to virtually disappear off the battlefield in the later middle ages; for all their value, they were not indispenable.

Shields did disappear most likely because of gun powder - but I am not certain of this.

Not sure how to do the quate thing right so I used bold face to point out my answers / questions

Sorry

Wulfgarn

Post by Wulfgarn »

I belevie it was Mad Martigan from the Historical Record "Willow" thatg made the best use of Shield Surfing

Heh

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Wulfgarn wrote:
Not sure how to do the quate thing right so I used bold face to point out my answers / questions

Sorry

I can help there; like so {}=[]

{quote="Wulfgarn"}

{quote="Matthew"}

Text

{/quote}

Text

{quote]}

Text

Use the preview button to be sure.
Wulfgarn wrote:
I do not have the article but will try to find it- I remeber there being a few photos of a man and a woman fighting - ahhh ill find it

They might have been thinking of the Ancient Greek disgrace of losing one's shield, which was supposed to be evidence that an individual had run away (discarding his heavy shield to run faster).
Wulfgarn wrote:
Can you explain Parallel Armor class for me

Sure, it's just what I was yabbering on about earlier in the thread, check my post on the previous page for a full explanation. Basically, it's a secondary Armour Class based on character level, class, attributes and mode of defence (Block, Parry or Dodge).

An Orc with 1 HD, for instance, would have a Parallel Armour Class of 15 when using a Large Shield [10 + HD (1) + Shield (4)] or 13 when using a Small Shield [10 + HD (1) + Shield (2)], whilst a Level Three Fighter with a Large Shield +1 and Strength 15 would have a Parallel Armour Class of 19 [10 + Strength Bonus (1) + Level (3) + Shield (5)].

A character with a Shield can use their Parallel Armour Class instead of their normal Armour Class against one attack per round (though they can also sacrifice an attack to use it more than once). This creates a situation where, whilst it's preferable to be heavily armoured, a shield can make a big difference for lightly armoured characters.
Wulfgarn wrote:
Its funny - but in our FR game the DM wanted to add some DR to armor that is E/C and that is exactly what he set up.

Heh, heh. Well, I suppose there's only so many ways to do it. It works very well from my experience with it.
Wulfgarn wrote:
I played in a game (3e heavily modifeid) that switched to armor as DR

The way it worked was all Attacks were based off of the Touch attack and if you were able to Hit then armor counted as DR so a Chain Shirt was DR4.... Now for Finesse Fighters- we simply used the rules as they were originally written -- I think there was a minor mod. to it though.

Yeah, I think the rules are in the D20 Unearthed Arcana. D20 Conan also has a similar approach.
Wulfgarn wrote:
Ahhhh- Magic becomes more powerful because the fighters become less effective and Magic has been unchanged thereby giving it a boost up in effectiveness--- That auto hitting Magic missile is that much more important etc.

Right, I'm following you now.
Wulfgarn wrote:
Shields did disappear most likely because of gun powder - but I am not certain of this.

As far as can currently be determined, the tendency towards smaller, or a lack of, shields on the late medieval battlefield seems to have been connected to an increase in the frequency of body armour and improvement in the protection it offered, rather than the proliferation of firearms, which the phenomonen predates by something like a couple of hundred years.

By way of analogue, feudal (and pre feudal) Japan seems to have discarded and never readopted the shield for melee combat (though they had something similar for missile exchanges).

I wouldn't want to be without one, though...
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

phadeout
Red Cap
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 7:00 am

Post by phadeout »

Well, this being C&C and all, and reading through parts of this thread, just remember one thing: Keep It Simple
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

I don't know about that. One of the strengths of Castles & Crusades is that it has a simple default rule set, but that lends itself as well to building complex house rules as it does to simple additions. In short, no need to keep it simple if you don't want to...
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

Matthew wrote:
I don't know about that. One of the strengths of Castles & Crusades is that it has a simple default rule set, but that lends itself as well to building complex house rules as it does to simple additions. In short, no need to keep it simple if you don't want to...

My perception check says he meant, "Add what you want, but strive to keep the additions as simple as possible."

So whatever you want to add, keep the resolution and implementation of the new rules as simple as possible.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
zombiehands
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:00 am

Post by zombiehands »

I really like the parellel AC idea. Its very simple and would seem easy to implement. I would not even bother with it for monsters. [/i]
There are two novels that can change a 14-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
John Rogers

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Treebore wrote:
My perception check says he meant, "Add what you want, but strive to keep the additions as simple as possible."

So whatever you want to add, keep the resolution and implementation of the new rules as simple as possible.

Sure, and I agree with the sentiment personally. However... I don't think it's necessarily absolute, which is to say, I think if people want to make their C&C game needlessly complicated (some people like complicated, after all), there's no reason why they shouldn't.
zombiehands wrote:
I really like the parellel AC idea. Its very simple and would seem easy to implement. I would not even bother with it for monsters.

Indeed, it's proven very simple in play. In most cases, Monsters will already have an AC above any parallel AC they might achieve, so it shouldn't make too much difference either way. However, for Classed NPCs it might make a difference here and there, since there is greater variety.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Post Reply