Measly shields...

[slimykuotoan]

In real life, shields seem very important to me. Anyone give shields their due, and grant more than a +1 bonus for using them?

[Treebore]

In real life, shields seem very important to me. Anyone give shields their due, and grant more than a +1 bonus for using them?

I allow it to add to their AC versus all their opponents. Except those attacking directly to their back side. Since Expert Shields in my game only cost 250 GP more, they soon have a +2 to their AC versus all opponents, except from the rear.

While movies like the 300 make Shields appear to be of far more use than the game would give them, a Shield only protects from attacks the wielder knows about. Their body armor protects from any attack, from any direction, at any time. So while the system, as is, is not perfect, I think its close enough as far as the AC mechanics of the game goes.

[Aramis]

With the way the to hit mechanic is built with only 20 steps on a d20 it is difficult to accomodate the true nature of shields.

A fun experiment is to have yourself and a friend put on all white clothing, grease up two broom sticks and whack at each other 20 times. Then do the same thing but with both of you holding a greased stick and a garbage can lid in the other hand.

The typical D&D mechanic would tell us that there would only be a 5% difference in the number of black marks on each others clothing with the shield. I am willing to bet the shield differential would be far greater than 5%. In fact, I bet it would be greater than 50%

Another thing that D&D has difficulty with is that shields are often temporary. They can only take so many hits. But again, I assume that is a mechanical choice to keep the rules from being too fiddly.

Making shields much better for AC could warp the way combat works too much and change game balance (maybe dragons would start carrying shields for protection ) so we just close our eyes and have fun with it

[slimykuotoan]

Good points.

I'm not sure the armour bonuses jive when compared to shields either.

If I took up a warhammer and started trying to smash people, I wonder how many would choose shields over leather armour, or perhaps even a chain shirt.

[slimykuotoan]

In all honesty, I would think shields would supply a +4 bonus to AC.

[Aramis]

If we wanted to get totally revolutionary we could:

1) switch armour to a damage reduction effect, rather than defense bonus, but at a cost of slowing you down

2) have shields provide a defense bonus, but also have them slow you down

3) change initiative to more of a "shot clock" system like Aces and Eights where each action costs a certain number of "action points". With heavier armour and shields adding a time penalty to the costs of various actions

Thus, the man in light armour and without a shield has only minor DR, but, he is faster and so he gets a full dex bonus to defense and over the course of 5 rounds, he maybe swings 7 times to the heavy armour+shield guy who is more difficult to hit and to damage but only gets to swing 5 times

And while we're at it, we'll add a bifurcated HP system of stamina/vitality points which will more accurately track tiredness and critical strikes

And it will all be smooth as silk and not at all fiddly

[slimykuotoan]

Yeah, I think shield effects accuracy would require a roll to fully block a blow.

[tylermo]

I'm content to go with the RAW. Don't want to bog things down.

[Treebore]

If you really think all Shields should give a minimum of +4 you can just rule that all shields in your world are that good, for whatever reason. Magic, etc... I've been toying with an idea to allow Fighters, the class, to increase the bonus they get from a Shield +1 for every 3 levels. Maybe allow the Paladin and Knight to gain an additional +1 every 4 levels, and the Barbarian and Bard to gain it every 5 levels. You could name that ability after that Feat, or whatever they call them in the CKG, that gives an additional +1 from a Shield when you take it. If I actually used the CKG for my own games, I would know the name of it, but since I only use it in a game I play in, I don't have it memorized.

[Captain_K]

AC get high fast, but shields should or could be worth more. I have been toying with the simple mod of +2 for the shield. But I agree the shield is a temporary item, but if we make it get beat to unused, then folks buy more, carry a second or magic repairs them.,.. again, not to exciting worrying about "what kind of shape is my shield in"...

The way it is, works for play... just like a rapier only attacks once just like a Halberd or a dagger in each round...

Fantasy RPG.. not always logical, modify as you see fit.

I like the basic idea that shields are cheap, disposable/repairable, and the GMW could be kept at a lower cost.. THEN I would increase the cost of armor even more..

[Lurker]

The thing that gets to me (via the rules and shields) is the 'static' use of shields. As written, that are something you hang on your arm for a +1 ac ... (I do like tree's progressive improvement, it helps a bit)

However, they weren't simply arm hangers. They were dynamic multi use items of war. The best example (I think I bookmarked it on my work computer, but don't have it here) is something I saw on youtube. A swordsman using Viking style shields and then going "why is it made like this? If it is to just stop a sword blow, the Vikings messed up their design. However, if you use it like this .... it is an amazing design" They used it to pivot and bind weapon arms, tangle opponents and have them expose their legs - to a slash from the sword - and as a weapon to bash with the boss & edge.

Now ..... translating that to the game .... I don't know how (and not making it toooooo complex). It drives me crazy not being able to find the 'styles' of fighting - I swear it was in a 'Crusader' but I still can't find it. I think that had a fair answer to the riddle.

Oh well, I can't find it or fix it sooooooo ......

[Arduin]

I give metal shields an additional 1 to AC.

BTW, IRL knight vs. knight in Full plate you didn't see shield use much as two handed weapons were needed to break thorough the armor in a somewhat rapid manner.

[Kayolan]

I keep the use of shields as is (the +1), but a character can hide behind a shield during certain attacks or situations and, depending on the size of the character and shield, it will grant an amount of hard cover (see the hard cover rules, which can add quite a lot more of an AC bonus). This is especially useful if the character is getting shot at.

[slimykuotoan]

Cool Kayolan.

I think I may go with the +2 bonus from here on in, as well as your idea.

[Kayolan]

Cool Kayolan.

I think I may go with the +2 bonus from here on in, as well as your idea.

+2 would equate to 25% cover according to the rules, and if you really wanted to get realistic about it, you could have the shield make saves against crushing blows, etc. as per the CKG rules

[slimykuotoan]

Well that's the thing. In gaming one chooses what realism to explore, otherwise I'd be monitoring the cholesterol level of my rogue character during game play. To grant a higher bonus suffices for me here.

[Ancalagon]

I've been toying with the idea of having a shield reduce a CRIT to a normal hit, if a PC or NPC decides to do so, at the expense of the shield. In other words, a shield is destroyed when reducing a CRIT to the less damaging normal hit.

[Tadhg]

Expert shields are available in my games, not easy to acquire and moderately costly.

Magic shields are there as well, but mostly available as the players advance in level and can get to places (and live to tell about it) where they are.

[Tadhg]

Oh, and to answer slimy's question, yes - like others +2 to steel shields!

[Andrew]

I'm under the influence that shields were vastly important to self defense. For that reason, I give them a boost. Basic AC bonus for sure, although I like the added abilities people talk about it. One just needs to think about just how important a shield was, particularly prior to plate armor. It really was probably people's first-line defense. A large flat object you could put directly in the way of someone else's weapon.

[serleran]

It is important to remember that a shield provides an AC adjustment against multiple foes.

However, I find an easy way to handle it is thus, depending on size:

Large -- against the first foe in a round, the shield grants +3 AC and decreases to +1 at the third, and all subsequent (therefore, it always gives +1, against any number) attacks.

Medium -- against the first, it gives a +3 bonus but does not give any adjustment beyond the 3rd opponent

Small -- +2 against the first, then +1, without any bonus thereafter.

Buckler -- +1 against a single attack

[Lord Dynel]

I would go into about how I think armor should reduce the damage of incoming attacks, while shields should improve AC (along with Dex modfiers and a set bonus that depends on class and level) but moot points are...moot.

[Treebore]

Yeah, the problem with shields is if you improve what they do, you will have to change all the numbers of all the armors. That or have even more inflated AC's. Or maybe just rule that Shields can never be enchanted. Because if you start out with Shields being +2, for an example, that means if you ever hand out a Shield with a +5 Enchantment, it will give a +7 to AC. So if you start out having shields with a +3 or even higher, it makes the numbers even worse. Sure, you can just be sure to never hand out such enchanted shields, but I prefer having the numbers work, rather than artificially tweak how I run the system.

So at the very least, I would create a reasonably logical reason why Shields cannot go above a +6 total AC enhancement. I already dislike what high AC's do to the game as it is. I don't want to throw NPC's or monsters with a +13 BtH at the players even sooner, just so I can have a decent chance of even hitting them.

[serleran]

I should say, in my game, the enchantment bonus can never exceed +3. However, you can get "bulwark" as a shield property which increases the number of attacks each round the AC bonus can be applied against.

[Buttmonkey]

If you really want to model shields "realistically", you should probably be playing Advanced Hackmaster.

[Arduin]

One thing you can do that doesn't totally break the AC paradigm is to give bonuses vs. missiles. Based on the % of body that is covered (treat as hard cover).

A Large shield would give at least a +5 (50% cover). Leave "hand to hand" AC values the same...

[Treebore]

If you really want to model shields "realistically", you should probably be playing Advanced Hackmaster.

A number of us tried that, Slimy, Kayolan, etc... way too much number tracking and crunching for us.

[serleran]

One thing you can do that doesn't totally break the AC paradigm is to give bonuses vs. missiles. Based on the % of body that is covered (treat as hard cover).

A Large shield would give at least a +5 (50% cover). Leave "hand to hand" AC values the same...

That's how I handle a pavis.

[Omote]

Try this: First opponent +3 AC, 2nd opponent, +2 AC, 3rd opponent +1 AC.

You can use this to simulate the fact that a shield can only defend against so many attackers at once, increasingly becoming less effective. perhaps the AC runs out on the 4th attacker and becomes useless? Perhaps Large shields start with a +5 bonus. Because larger shields are heavier, perhaps the bonus against opponents scales from +5, +3, +1?

Perhaps a small shield always provides a +1 and only a +1 AC because of how light and maneuverable it is?

Play around with it and see how it works for your games.

~O

[ThrorII]

Long ago I house ruled that bucklers give +1, round (Viking) shields give +2, kite (knight) shields give +3 and tower shields give +4 to AC. also give that bonus to all attacks from the front or front-ish.

Since I run lower magic games, it worked fine.