PDA

View Full Version : All shields should have cover



Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:03 AM
example of a large shield
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/kite_shield.jpg

For all of us who have used a kiteshield or other shields that would be considered large in D&D and have hunched down behind them while someone is loosing arrows at you, you might have noticed they provide decent cover.

So what I'm suggesting is a homebrew rule, so to say, that large shields provide a cover of 50% as long as you are aware of the attacking archer and you are positioined so that you may use your shield against said archer. small shields would give a cover of 30%

any opinions, suggestions, trolling etc etc?

Technically this is a large shield as well
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/neck_to_knees.jpg

now this is a small shield. pic's are just for making examples.
http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/local--files/priest/Priest.png

Ravens_cry
2010-05-11, 04:16 AM
While it may or may not be more realistic, it's rather fiddly to be rolling percentile dice with almost every archer attack. We have an archer who absolutely spams arrows and I tell you, it would make combat a right slog to have to keep track of that kind of dice rolling. But hey, if you want to house rule that, try it and see if it works for your group.

lord_khaine
2010-05-11, 04:21 AM
Following that logic armor should give even more cover, since it covers a larger % of the body.

Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:28 AM
raven: good point. how about just increasing the AC vs arrows?
Khaine: no. thats what we have AC for. my point is that a +2 to AC in melee is resonable, but vs arrows it should be higher

Ravens_cry
2010-05-11, 04:40 AM
raven: good point. how about just increasing the AC vs arrows?

Maybe that would be a good idea. I would include bolts, sling bullets and similar projectiles in this. Like I said, try it and see.

Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:43 AM
yeah, I just say "arrow" for simplicitys sake. SHOULD say "projectiles"

so maybe like this:
small shields bonus vs projectiles: 1
large: 2
buckler: haha! no.
tower: you have cover so ssshhh

Ravens_cry
2010-05-11, 04:45 AM
yeah, I just say "arrow" for simplicitys sake. SHOULD say "projectiles"

Yes, the Snot Slingers of the Boogie Bogey Swamps shall learn to fear our shields, as will the Pea Shooters of Miss Marmins Grade 2 class!:smalltongue:

Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:46 AM
those pea shooters are enchanted!

Darkfire
2010-05-11, 04:47 AM
I'm curious: Would you include grenade-like weapons and non-ray ranged touch attacks (such as Orb of x) in your definition of projectiles?

Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:48 AM
thats a iffy one...
I would say that if it ignores AC(as in...the actual armour) it ignores the shield

taltamir
2010-05-11, 04:50 AM
the thing is, a shield is not a solid wall, its fairly flimsy and tends to break apart during combat.
cover also gives a whole lot of benefits, such as immunity to AoO.

I think a better idea is that shields provide double their base bonus (before magic enhancement) to AC vs ranged attacks (eg, arrows, bullets, etc) BUT:
1. Only if you are not in melee (they already get a -4 penalty, and the fact you are swinging it around and not necessarily facing the archer with it works to your detriment. It still gives the regular bonus.
2. Only vs a certain direction, in a ~45 degree arc.
3. Only when not flat footed.

When you hunker down behind your shield while pointing it AT an archer it provides extra protection... the question is, should you now lose your bonus vs archery attacks coming at you from behind? I think part of the abstraction of the AC is that you COULD be facing the opponent, or you could be facing the other way. Maybe you swung your shield in the way, maybe they snuck behind you and hit you where the shield wasn't, etc...
But if you want to have such a rule I think the above method is the way to do it.

Shademan
2010-05-11, 04:53 AM
the thing is, a shield is not a solid wall, its fairly flimsy and tends to break apart during combat.
cover also gives a whole lot of benefits, such as immunity to AoO.

I think a better idea is that shields provide double their base bonus (before magic enhancement) to AC vs ranged attacks (eg, arrows, bullets, etc) BUT:
1. Only if you are not in melee (they already get a -4 penalty, and the fact you are swinging it around and not necessarily facing the archer with it works to your detriment. It still gives the regular bonus.
2. Only vs a certain direction, in a ~45 degree arc.
3. Only when not flat footed.

When you hunker down behind your shield while pointing it AT an archer it provides extra protection... the question is, should you now lose your bonus vs archery attacks coming at you from behind? I think part of the abstraction of the AC is that you COULD be facing the opponent, or you could be facing the other way. Maybe you swung your shield in the way, maybe they snuck behind you and hit you where the shield wasn't, etc...
But if you want to have such a rule I think the above method is the way to do it.

I completely agree. that is very reasonable.
and yes, if you hunker down behind your shield while a archer gets behind you, you should loose your bonus.

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-11, 05:02 AM
raven: good point. how about just increasing the AC vs arrows?

In 3.5, cover is represented simply by an increase to your armor class, which shields provide. The armor class is derived from the idea that a combatant with a shield will be making every effort to deflect blows with their shield.

You could play an older edition in which they did this rather than looking at what is currently available and presenting it as a new idea. :smallbiggrin: AD&D gave characters with higher dexterity and those with shields bonus AC against missile attacks, iirc.

If you go back to D&D's roots in Chainmail, I believe shields actually offered a chance to increase armor class.

Edit: Now, I think one should be able to take cover behind most large shields similar to how one can with a tower shield. This grants a bonus to reflex saves as well as making one practically immune to arrow fire. Add in a feat that allows one to ready an action to take cover behind the shield by expending their move action or something similar, and I think what you're looking for can be modeled simply.

obnoxious
sig

Project_Mayhem
2010-05-11, 05:14 AM
I like this extra-AC-vs.-missiles-when-not-flat-footed rule. Makes shields a bit better, which is good.

What do you think about adding it to ranged touch as well? or perhaps only with enchanted shields?

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-11, 05:18 AM
What do you think about adding it to ranged touch as well?

There's a feat for that. Shield Ward (PH2) adds shield AC to touch AC AND to rolls to resist bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun and trip attempts.


I completely agree. that is very reasonable.
and yes, if you hunker down behind your shield while a archer gets behind you, you should loose your bonus.

(I'm still assuming we're talking 3.5) Adding facing into a game that doesn't normally model it opens up a big ol' can of worms. As K put it:

Hiding in 3.5 D&D is Dumb

The 3.5 rules for hiding, where you need cover or concealment to hide, are retarded. That makes Rogues run around with tower shields so that they can hide themselves and their equipment behind the cover of the tower shield (including the tower shield itself, which makes my brain hurt). Yes, you can totally hide when there are no intervening objects between you and the victim. It's called "sneaking up behind people" and in a game with no facing it's handled with a hide check opposed by spot.

It's reasonable enough to deny shield AC (and associated benefits of using a shield such as taking cover) when one is flat-footed. When an opposing archer isn't the only one to watch for, it should be equally reasonable to for such an archer to stealthily move into a more advantageous position. But I similarly believe that a shield-bearer focusing on protecting himself could easily maneuver his shield amid a 6-second round to a position that would continue to protect him from said archer.

obnoxious
sig

paddyfool
2010-05-11, 05:26 AM
the thing is, a shield is not a solid wall, its fairly I think a better idea is that shields provide double their base bonus (before magic enhancement) to AC vs ranged attacks (eg, arrows, bullets, etc) BUT:
1. Only if you are not in melee (they already get a -4 penalty, and the fact you are swinging it around and not necessarily facing the archer with it works to your detriment. It still gives the regular bonus.
2. Only vs a certain direction, in a ~45 degree arc.
3. Only when not flat footed.


I'd agree on 1 and 3, but not 2. Also, bucklers should have a special rule that says their effect is not doubled versus ranged attacks (giving the light shield some real advantage).

Of course, while helping fix one problem, we're compounding another, since just as sword & board is underpowered, so too is archery (at least, in terms of being a viable primary tactic), and this makes it even weaker.

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-11, 05:40 AM
Of course, while helping fix one problem, we're compounding another, since just as sword & board is underpowered, so too is archery (at least, in terms of being a viable primary tactic), and this makes it even weaker.

Further, making a thing more complicated is generally a good way to discourage it. From the perspective of the player (not the PC), magic is far simpler.

obnoxious
sig

pasko77
2010-05-11, 06:01 AM
Yes, the Snot Slingers of the Boogie Bogey Swamps shall learn to fear our shields, as will the Pea Shooters of Miss Marmins Grade 2 class!:smalltongue:

Hey, Pea shooters kill zombies.

IT: I would say "no shield should have cover", which is a clunky mechanics, and all shields should have bonus AC vs. projectile and touch attacks.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-11, 06:14 AM
Hey, Pea shooters kill zombies.

But of course, they had not our shields.:smallbiggrin:

Skaven
2010-05-11, 07:37 AM
We fight in the shade.

Shademan
2010-05-11, 07:38 AM
another thing is the ridiculus ammount of feats you need to do stuff a fighter (or anyone with proficiency) is expected to know, like how to do a shield-wall.
naturally, this can be easily houseruled away.

taltamir
2010-05-11, 07:49 AM
I'd agree on 1 and 3, but not 2. Also, bucklers should have a special rule that says their effect is not doubled versus ranged attacks (giving the light shield some real advantage).

Of course, while helping fix one problem, we're compounding another, since just as sword & board is underpowered, so too is archery (at least, in terms of being a viable primary tactic), and this makes it even weaker.

a buckler get a whopping +1 vs archery under my suggestion.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-11, 11:52 AM
Come to Hackmaster Basic, where everything is awesome.

First, and to the point, shields give cover. I don't recall how much, but it's not something I looked at.

Also, to the point, shields don't suck... not taking a shield is a big decision, especially for front-liners. Sure, that greatsword gives you nice damage... but even a small shield gives you, effectively, 8 points of defense.

At standard, your defense bonus (you roll your defense) is based on your race (elves and halflings have a bonus), your dexterity, your wisdom, your shield and your armor (which is a penalty; both armor and shields are DR).

If you choose to forgo a shield, you take a flat -4 to your defense; however, on a successful defense roll, you take 0 damage. If you use a shield, you don't take that penalty, and get a bonus from the shield (+4 for a small shield). However, a successful defense means you take half damage (or one point plus strength damage in the case of piercing weapons)... but you also get to add your shields DR to that, so you will often take no damage.

Redrat2k6
2010-05-11, 12:02 PM
I have a houserule that all shields except Bucklars give DR 3/melee.

This represents the character using their shield as best they can while still allowing room for "lucky damage" shots. As for shots in which the defender is unaware, that's what sneak attack and Order of the Bow type things are for.

Lets assume that their are exceptions to the DR/melee such as hurled giant boulders and whatnot. As determined by the DM... me.

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-11, 01:07 PM
I like Mark Hall's idea because it involves trying Hackmaster, which is a wonderful thing everyone should do at least once in their life.


another thing is the ridiculus ammount of feats you need to do stuff a fighter (or anyone with proficiency) is expected to know, like how to do a shield-wall.

I agree that this is stupid as well. The average character's going to get a total of about seven feats. It's ridiculous to expect martial characters who already somehow know how to use every martial and simple weapon under the sun as well as fight effectively in all types of armor to not understand and be able to instruct others on combat maneuvers like a shield wall. Moreover, asking two or more characters to take feats to do such a thing is way too much.

Granted, I think some of that stuff is meant for NPCs and is certainly handy when statting out an army and more interesting than just giving everyone improved toughness and weapon focus.

obnoxious
sig

Matthew
2010-05-11, 01:08 PM
Are you thinking of concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment)? Shields already operate like cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) in D20/3e, that being what the AC modifier represents.

It always comes down to the same thing with this sort of stuff, which is to say if you improve the defensive efficacy of a shield then you generally need to improve the offensive efficacy of a two-handed weapon. Unfortunately, D20/3e is pretty borked on that score, and figuring out quite where the middle ground lies is quite subjective.

However, if you are interested in making your D20 combat more "realistic" or "authentic" then you could do a lot worse than taking a look at Galloglaich's Codex Martialis (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=58045&).

electricbee
2010-05-11, 01:11 PM
I think the easiest way to handle it is through the fighting defensively and total defense actions.

The bonus to defense is from the hunkering down, and otherwise you are to focused on your own actions to keep your sheild precisely between you and the direction the arrows are coming from

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 01:32 PM
I think that aside/instead upgrading defensive capabilities of a shield, one should think about improving it's offensive potential.

It's not even about "realism" (not much possible in D&D) but (un)fortunately whole system encourages destroying stuff quickly instead of worrying about AC.

Mastikator
2010-05-11, 01:40 PM
Following that logic armor should give even more cover, since it covers a larger % of the body.

Um nah, it should give damage reduction, since it absorbs blows. But a blow that goes through a shield would more likely miss you anyway. So shields should give AC and armors DR :P

I would simply say, use dr as ac optional rule and increase the amount of ac shields give. (bucklers +1, small shields +2, large +4 and tower +7 for example)

taltamir
2010-05-11, 02:35 PM
I think that aside/instead upgrading defensive capabilities of a shield, one should think about improving it's offensive potential.

It's not even about "realism" (not much possible in D&D) but (un)fortunately whole system encourages destroying stuff quickly instead of worrying about AC.

whats unfortunate about it? the best defense is a good offense. And you know what? that isn't just true its also fun.


Come to Hackmaster Basic, where everything is awesome.

First, and to the point, shields give cover. I don't recall how much, but it's not something I looked at.

Also, to the point, shields don't suck... not taking a shield is a big decision, especially for front-liners. Sure, that greatsword gives you nice damage... but even a small shield gives you, effectively, 8 points of defense.

At standard, your defense bonus (you roll your defense) is based on your race (elves and halflings have a bonus), your dexterity, your wisdom, your shield and your armor (which is a penalty; both armor and shields are DR).

If you choose to forgo a shield, you take a flat -4 to your defense; however, on a successful defense roll, you take 0 damage. If you use a shield, you don't take that penalty, and get a bonus from the shield (+4 for a small shield). However, a successful defense means you take half damage (or one point plus strength damage in the case of piercing weapons)... but you also get to add your shields DR to that, so you will often take no damage.

Are you proposing this as a houserule, or are you saying that by RAW shields give cover?

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 02:38 PM
whats unfortunate about it? the best defense is a good offense. And you know what? that isn't just true its also fun.


If you're talking from realistic point of view, then actual combatants dissagre with you.

Generally if someone didn't have solid (mail/plate/scale/whatever) armor covering most of the body, he wasn't too eager to go to any sort of combat without shield.

Offense is good if you can survive in the first place. :smallwink:

taltamir
2010-05-11, 02:44 PM
If you're talking from realistic point of view, then actual combatants dissagre with you.

Generally if someone didn't have solid (mail/plate/scale/whatever) armor covering most of the body, he wasn't too eager to go to any sort of combat without shield.

Offense is good if you can survive in the first place. :smallwink:

um... choose, a gun or body armor. (hint: chose the gun)
tank or airplane?

etc... IRL defense is better then no defense. But offense takes priority.
And of the various actual defenses, mobility (to avoid getting hit) is the most effective.

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 02:56 PM
um... choose, a gun or body armor. (hint: chose the gun)
tank or airplane?

etc... IRL defense is better then no defense. But offense takes priority.
And of the various actual defenses, mobility (to avoid getting hit) is the most effective.

Very bad comparisons.

If I want to survive being shot from hand weapons by few attackers, I will choose moderate class kevlar vest anytime over gun. To survive and escape.
With other goals, my choice may be different.

No kind of sick mobility will allow you to survive when you're fighting in wall of shields when somebody is thrusting spear at you and you're bothered with something else.

Of course, ability to inflict harm is very important (but not always, really across the Europe in High middle age the purpose of common infantry was often to just stand and not give field, ), but you can inflict harm with spear as well as with two handed one, and in first instance you have wonderful tool as shield.

You can check any book about armies from antic times to ~1500 A.D. and shield is primary tool of most combatants.

Really, we're getting horribly out of topic, but please don't try to tell anyone that 0 AC shock trooper charger from 3.5 would have any sense outside the simple game as D&D.

lsfreak
2010-05-11, 02:58 PM
um... choose, a gun or body armor. (hint: chose the gun)

That's not what we're choosing between though. It's between shield-and-longsword versus greatsword. Or SAW + clothes versus M16 + body armor, in more modern terms that you used.

taltamir
2010-05-11, 03:01 PM
Very bad comparisons.

If I want to survive being shot from hand weapons by few attackers, I will choose moderate class kevlar vest anytime over gun. To survive and escape.
With other goals, my choice may be different.

kevlar is not nearly as effective as you think in stopping bullets.
You are not just going to keep on running while bullets hit your kevlar vest.
The key to surviving a gun-fight is "shoot first" and "don't miss"... not running away while bullets bounce off your armor. And where the hell do you think you will run to? your pursuers can also run, and they have no incentive to NOT be running full speed since you are unarmed, you however have to duck for cover (hopefully). or run while being pelted with bullets.
Basically you are totally screwed.

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 03:09 PM
kevlar is not nearly as effective as you think in stopping bullets.
You are not just going to keep on running while bullets hit your kevlar vest.
The key to surviving a gun-fight is "shoot first" and "don't miss"... not running away while bullets bounce off your armor. And where the hell do you think you will run to? your pursuers can also run, and they have no incentive to NOT be running full speed since you are unarmed, you however have to duck for cover (hopefully). or run while being pelted with bullets.
Basically you are totally screwed.

Actually say, Type IIA armor can protect well against handgun bullets one would expect to be attacked with in such situation.

And you're thinking in completely abstract way if you suggest that attackers can shoot as long as the want if they're trying to kill someone in even very unpopulated area.
And that attacked person has not any place to run away, or any support to call.

And that any sane person will try to fight against superior numbers with " shoot first" in mind.

Not to mention that one CAN actually have place to run to.

Or car to quickly leave the place, after he SURVIVED being shot.

Also, I would have to say that internet gun fights had to be even more silly than internet fencing.

That said, it's off topic as hell, and warriors of middle ages ("D&D like") always have their shields and/or solid armors in the first place.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-11, 03:14 PM
Are you proposing this as a houserule, or are you saying that by RAW shields give cover?

That's RAW for Hackmaster Basic. I know their cover rating is listed in their stats.

As for "offense being a good defense", that's only true to a point. If you have no defense, you can't survive to use your offense, especially if your offense is slow at all.

"As two full round actions, I can Summon the Lady of Pain, who will give me a kiss before she kicks your alternate-name-for-a-donkey. However, if you hit me in those two rounds, I die."

Your offense is awesome... but having no defense is useless.

Now, back to Hackmaster. Going with a two-handed sword gets you some nice damage... but it also nets you a very high speed (which is bad, since you can only attack again after your speed in seconds). In that time, someone in Jab mode with a dagger might have attacked twice, or at least gotten in a good shot.

taltamir
2010-05-11, 03:16 PM
you were the one who made it 1 vs many. And 1 vs 1 or 1 vs many both favor the weapon over the armor. you don't need to kill them all to escape. By suppressing fire could make them think twice about chasing you at a full run. obviously shots are limited.

As for back on topic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
Some armor could stop arrows. They would go right through chainmail, but not fullplate. At least according to wikipedia, I recall sources claiming otherwise.

A morning star though would kill a person in full plate armor. And its better to be armed then armored. Of course ideally you are both armed AND armored.


That's RAW for Hackmaster Basic. I know their cover rating is listed in their stats.

what is hackmaster basic?

Darrin
2010-05-11, 03:24 PM
If you choose to forgo a shield, you take a flat -4 to your defense; however, on a successful defense roll, you take 0 damage. If you use a shield, you don't take that penalty, and get a bonus from the shield (+4 for a small shield). However, a successful defense means you take half damage (or one point plus strength damage in the case of piercing weapons)... but you also get to add your shields DR to that, so you will often take no damage.

While I have a great deal of fond admiration for Hackmaster, it utterly and completely befuddles me how you can so audaciously slap the term "Basic" on something so fiddly.

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 03:24 PM
As for back on topic...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
Some armor could stop arrows. They would go right through chainmail, but not fullplate. At least according to wikipedia, I recall sources claiming otherwise.

A morning star though would kill a person in full plate armor. And its better to be armed then armored. Of course ideally you are both armed AND armored.


Actually you may have many good points about modern arms, but in "medievalic" settings armors would be very potent.

Morning star could kill person in plate, just as many other weapons, but it won't be easy at all. Reenactors are fighting with maces against each other (at least east of Odra, and Russians are particularly crazy in this regard) and it's not easy at all to disable "opponent".

Person with "only" plate armor actually could have at least comparable chances against person with only mornignstar, because with proper skills it can easily go close distance and wrestle opponent down. Then maul with armored elbows, choke, grab morningstar etc. And will be massively harder to kill in close combat too due to armor.

Actually in live steel reenacting wrestling is often forbidden because with "safe" weapons and armor closing in without punishment is particulary easy.

Also, mail armor isn't particularly susceptible to arrows. Nobody would wear it trough more than 1000 years if it was. Certainly no arrow will go "right trough" mail.

taltamir
2010-05-11, 03:30 PM
it isn't PARTICULARLY susceptible to arrows, but it is susceptible to bodkin headed arrows.
And of course they would wear it, its better then not wearing any armor. It might not stop a good hit from a broad headed arrow, but it could stop or at least reduce the damage from many other weapons.

As for closing in to wrestle... you will most likely get hit at least one by a swing from the morning star. In the head it will kill you, in the arms or legs it will shatter bones. Armor is more effective against slashing or piercing weapons. it might prevent that sword or dagger from penetrating (you still get a bruise), but the force of the morning star is all about its momentum. It imparts that as impulse that travels right through the armor and into the soft human below.
So good luck wrestling someone with broken arms or a broken skull.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-11, 03:35 PM
While I have a great deal of fond admiration for Hackmaster, it utterly and completely befuddles me how you can so audaciously slap the term "Basic" on something so fiddly.

Hey, I'm not the one that named it. IIRC, Hackmaster Advanced isn't due out until 2011.

(For those not aware, the license with WotC that allowed the old Hackmaster to be published expired. KenzerCo came out with a new game, Hackmaster Basic, and is going to be following it with Hackmaster Advanced)

Matthew
2010-05-11, 03:40 PM
Well, the bottom line is that early medieval soldiers used shields and hand weapons, but as armour got better the shield was abandoned in favour of two-handed weapons. Does D20/3e reflect this? Not as far as I can see, but once we are out of the realms of low level warrior types it is all pretty inconsequential. Certainly, in the real world where weapons are deadly as compared to D20 where hit points can be relied upon to provide a buffer for a few rounds, offensive capability takes on a greater significance than defensive capability.

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 03:43 PM
it isn't PARTICULARLY susceptible to arrows, but it is susceptible to bodkin headed arrows.
And of course they would wear it, its better then not wearing any armor. It might not stop a good hit from a broad headed arrow, but it could stop or at least reduce the damage from many other weapons.

As for closing in to wrestle... you will most likely get hit at least one by a swing from the morning star. In the head it will kill you, in the arms or legs it will shatter bones. Armor is more effective against slashing or piercing weapons. it might prevent that sword or dagger from penetrating (you still get a bruise), but the force of the morning star is all about its momentum. It imparts that as impulse that travels right through the armor and into the soft human below.
So good luck wrestling someone with broken arms or a broken skull.

This is all good, but as I said people ARE beating themselves with impact weapons, and they CAN close in.

Beating someone with bone shattering strike isn't so easy, and it may require time, obviously also a place to strike etc.

Even with "high impact" weapons like polleaxe manuals suggest stabbing into oppenings, of course.

I'm not saying that mornigstar cannot kill plated foe, because it certainly can like hell, but it's not going to be easy. And thus I say that in this
particular scenario man without any armor isn't on "better ground" because he has a weapon.

As for mail and bodkins there is one pretty good test in Internet, in the sea of "tests" with butted or mass produced crap mail, modern hollow aluminum arrows, laying mail on wood (:smalleek:) and other weird things.

It has pretty period arrows and pretty period mail and padding.

Bow is "mere" 50 pounder, but the distance is mere 5 meters.

Here (http://www.cotasdemalla.es/ma1.htm)

Please click "Test Cotas" link on the left.

erikun
2010-05-11, 04:04 PM
So what I'm suggesting is a homebrew rule, so to say, that large shields provide a cover of 50% as long as you are aware of the attacking archer and you are positioined so that you may use your shield against said archer. small shields would give a cover of 30%
I was considering a homebrew that did something similar. Basically, large shields could be switched between giving their usually +2 bonus to providing cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover), and everything included in that: +4 AC, -4 to hit, +2 reflex saves, no AoO (from you or against you). A tower shield would grant cover by default, or you could switch to total cover.

Using total cover with a tower shield would allow you to provide cover (partial or total) for an ally.

It's not quite perfect. As written, you can provide total cover against an enemy who is nowhere near you. It also makes the large shield exceptionally good for clerics, who can cast spells without worring about AoO. Still, it looks better than adding yet another miss chance to the system.

Small shields and bucklers would not provide cover (although perhaps small shields would be bumped up to +2).

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-11, 04:04 PM
Trying to model realism in a tabletop RPG is generally a bad idea. The system is abstracted. When you try to make certain parts of it realistic (types of arrows, shields providing more cover) through complex rules, then one begins to question the 'realism' of hit points, magic missiles, winged creatures that shouldn't be able to fly (dragons), a lack of internal consistency (why every universe isn't a Tippyverse) and so forth.

These discussions usually fall apart when people start bringing in historical examples, because you end up having people who know their stuff arguing with people who think they know their stuff and people who are completely wrong about their stuff and stuff gets everywhere.

I don't think considering facing against an archer when using a shield is going to work well in a system that doesn't use facing. I think it's reasonable to assume that a character using a shield to catch arrows can track multiple opponents and bring his shield to bear very quickly. Of course, I don't think a surrounded character should be able to gain cover from a tower shield against all foes, but by RAW he can. I suppose crouching really low and holding it over your head might work.

I don't mind the abstractions, personally.

That having been said, in the interest of staying on-topic, here are my condensed suggestions for modeling shields as cover in 3.5:

Allow large shields to provide cover as tower shields
Add a feat that allows one to ready an action to take cover by expending a swift action instead of the normal 'ready' action
Increase the dodge bonus from Combat Expertise when using a shield
Grant bonuses to AC when fighting defensively with a shield
Bring the Shield Ward feat to the attention of your players, or simply allow shield AC to apply to touch AC without the caveat that lies in the tower shield description regarding spellcasters targeting a shield to target the person holding it. Spellcasters have it good enough.


obnoxious
sig

Spiryt
2010-05-11, 04:08 PM
I must agree with Irreverent Fool and say that my point wasn't too argue about making 3.5 more realistic in "hardcore" way, but rather point for the point of point (weeeehaaaa) because it's fun to discuss.


For me shields can ever grant bonuses to Dexterity, if someone thinks that it would make it balanced and sensible (it probably won't, because explaining why my shield is helping me with lock picking would be hard, it's just example) - it's all anyway collusive.

Point was also to propose giving shields offensive capabilites, because it both makes sense and is kinda needed in 3.5

Maybe giving bonuses to damage/hit/whatever when opponent misses you significantly?

Or penalties to enemy AC or Concentration checks, because you can obscure your weapon and body movements with your shield (logical and actual techniques AFAIK).