Shields

[Tahlspar Ka'nes]

As I have understood it, shields are at their best when strapped to your arm - you can move the shield around as you move, blocking attacks (as you are best able), whilst you move and so on.

It was asked of me as to whether you can have a shield strapped to you back and still benefit from the full AC. The person has cited several Hollywood movies - Troy, The 300, Gladiator - as reasonable sources. There are possibly D&D novels, but this has yet to be confirmed.

I wasn't comfortable with that, given how Hollywood likes to make the unreasonable "reasonable".

Is there an actual D&D source or reference on this - having a shield strapped to your back and still benefiting from full AC on attacks from any direction? Or even a previous thread that is somewhere in this forum?

[VGLordR2]

I don't know about all shields, but there is a shield in Oriental Adventures that you wear on your back. It may not fit your concept too well, though. It's essentially a giant turtle shell. Also, I think you have to move on all fours for the full benefit. Either way, it's a pretty hilarious shield, and it gives a good AC bonus (+10).

[Toliudar]

If a shield isn't a highly mobile solid barrier, it would seem to be, well, armor.

[Slipperychicken]

Facing is never a problem, with 3.5's omidirectional facing. The Kappa Shield is hilarious (+10 AC, +4 Relfex saves, and Evasion as long as you're Prone and walking like a turtle), and I'm not finding anything that says it's even Exotic.


Get a +34 modifier on your Tumble checks, wear a Mithral Kappa Shield (enchant it for a bonus on Tumble, and minimize ACP), and drop prone (free action) when things try to hit you, then immediately stand back up (another free action)... I want to play this character now.

[Ashtagon]

As I have understood it, shields are at their best when strapped to your arm - you can move the shield around as you move, blocking attacks (as you are best able), whilst you move and so on.

It was asked of me as to whether you can have a shield strapped to you back and still benefit from the full AC. The person has cited several Hollywood movies - Troy, The 300, Gladiator - as reasonable sources. There are possibly D&D novels, but this has yet to be confirmed.


The only thing less reliable than a Hollywood movie for historical accuracy is a Bollywood movie. D&D novels generally aren't well-researched either in terms of historical accuracy (the research that is done for such novels, if any, is usually on D&D rules and campaign setting specifics, which isn't useful for this discussion).



I wasn't comfortable with that, given how Hollywood likes to make the unreasonable "reasonable".

Is there an actual D&D source or reference on this - having a shield strapped to your back and still benefiting from full AC on attacks from any direction? Or even a previous thread that is somewhere in this forum?

Strapped to your back is certainly a reasonable way to carry a shield, but probably not to wield one.


Shields are an active defence; you gain their benefit by interposing it between your attacker and yourself. Strapped to your back, you can't do this.
Shields also provide a significant amount of their defence by being manually tilted to deflect a blow rather than merely block it. Strapped to your back, you can't do this.
The "giant turtle shell" from Oriental Adventures (3e) doesn't have much relation to historical accuracy.
Oriental Adventures (1e) had the horo: "Horo: This is an unusual, yet simple protection that is sometimes worn by mounted warriors. It is simply several long strips of cloth sewn together. One end is tied at the neck and the other near the waist. When riding, the cloth fills with wind and balloons out behind the rider. When used in this method, it is only effective when the wearer is riding. Alternatively, a wicker skeleton can be worn underneath the horo, allowing it to work at all times. The horo improves the wearer's armour class by 1 against missile weapons shot at the back of the character only. It has no other protective use. The horo is usually brightly coloured and decorated with the crest of the owner. This helps identify the rider by his family and lets all know that he is more than just a common soldier." This is probably the nearest thing to any kind of historical back-mounted "shield".
Not counting the variant rule from Unearthed Arcana, 3e D&D shields provide their protection against attacks from any direction, provided you are not prevented from receiving the shield's benefit.
If you allow the character to benefit from a shield strapped on his back, expect him to have one magic shield on his back and another on his arm in the session after the next.

[eggs]

Facing is never a problem, with 3.5's omidirectional facing. The Kappa Shield is hilarious (+10 AC, +4 Relfex saves, and Evasion as long as you're Prone and walking like a turtle), and I'm not finding anything that says it's even Exotic.

Haha that's amazing.

/hashes out a Sloth Domain/Kappa Shelled Cleric in the last 15 minutes before the session.

[Kudaku]

I wouldn't give him the full AC benefit of a shield when it's not actively wielded and used to deflect attacks. Maybe have the shield give him a bonus whenever he provokes an opportunity attack for leaving a threatened square?

[The Redwolf]

I wouldn't give him the full AC benefit of a shield when it's not actively wielded and used to deflect attacks. Maybe have the shield give him a bonus whenever he provokes an opportunity attack for leaving a threatened square?

Or if attacked from behind, where it would actually block the blow.

[whibla]

The best RAW I can find regarding shields is the one that makes the most sense:

"Ready or Loose a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action."

This would tend to imply that you need to have it strapped to your arm, or at the very least be wielding it, to gain the shield bonus.

As for gaining the bonus against attacks from the rear when the shield is strapped to your back, there is no such thing as facing anymore, in 3.5 (unless you're playing the UA optional rules), and thus no such thing as an attack from the rear. Tbh, even if you are playing the variant rule I'd still suggest that a stowed shield would provide no AC benefit, as it's not actively being wielded.

[dascarletm]

The best RAW I can find regarding shields is the one that makes the most sense:

"Ready or Loose a Shield
Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action."

This would tend to imply that you need to have it strapped to your arm, or at the very least be wielding it, to gain the shield bonus.

As for gaining the bonus against attacks from the rear when the shield is strapped to your back, there is no such thing as facing anymore, in 3.5 (unless you're playing the UA optional rules), and thus no such thing as an attack from the rear. Tbh, even if you are playing the variant rule I'd still suggest that a stowed shield would provide no AC benefit, as it's not actively being wielded.

Yeah.. If you allow the sheild to give AC, then your packpack should provide cover as well.

It would probably just be a pain in the butt.

[Prime32]

Facing is never a problem, with 3.5's omidirectional facing. The Kappa Shield is hilarious (+10 AC, +4 Relfex saves, and Evasion as long as you're Prone and walking like a turtle), and I'm not finding anything that says it's even Exotic.


Get a +34 modifier on your Tumble checks, wear a Mithral Kappa Shield (enchant it for a bonus on Tumble, and minimize ACP), and drop prone (free action) when things try to hit you, then immediately stand back up (another free action)... I want to play this character now.

Haha that's amazing.

/hashes out a Sloth Domain/Kappa Shelled Cleric in the last 15 minutes before the session.It grants "nine-tenths cover", which does not exist in 3.5 (the conditions being reduced to cover and total cover). It also says it functions like a tower shield.

[DoughGuy]

I wouldn't give him the full AC benefit of a shield when it's not actively wielded and used to deflect attacks. Maybe have the shield give him a bonus whenever he provokes an opportunity attack for leaving a threatened square?
I would also remove any bonuses opponents get from flanking him since hi back is protected, but not have it give hiim any extra AC, as his armour would alreday be doing that.

[Curmudgeon]

Or if attacked from behind, where it would actually block the blow.
That can't happen in the simplified D&D world, since there's no "facing" and thus no attacks "from behind". The minimum time increment used (a combat round) is 6 seconds long, which includes enough time for someone to either turn or check over both shoulders. So sneaking up on someone with combat wariness on that time scale requires other rules (like the Move between Cover use of Hide skill in Complete Adventurer).

The simple answer is that if you haven't equipped a shield, it does you no good in D&D.

[Rainbownaga]

You'd need some sort of special training to pull it off. Deliberately spinning around to deflect a blow with your back is both impractical and potentially suicidal.

Fortunately we have a precedent for impractical and potentially suicidal weapons, so I would say you could let him get away with it if he treated it as exotic.

An animated shield is only +2 so you're giving him a +2 ac for a feat, and it does seem kinda cool in the same silly way that being able to pull off using a double weapon or a spike chain is.

[Quietus]

I would also remove any bonuses opponents get from flanking him since hi back is protected, but not have it give hiim any extra AC, as his armour would alreday be doing that.

Unfortunately, that'd be the same as giving a limited version of fortification, in that he wouldn't be able to be sneak attacked due to flanking - far too valuable a bonus for a relatively cheap price.

[Slipperychicken]

It grants "nine-tenths cover", which does not exist in 3.5 (the conditions being reduced to cover and total cover). It also says it functions like a tower shield.

So... I don't know how to convert this. I see a few possibilities.

1) Since it functions "much like a tower shield", It could give a 3.5 Tower Shield's AC bonus, and Total Cover (and the benefits thereof).

2) Since it gives close-to-Total cover, it could function like a 3.5 Tower Shield, but grant Improved Cover (+8 AC, +8 Reflex saves, Improved Evasion where applicable).

3) It yields the benefit of a 3.0 Tower Shield, and gives the listed benefit of "nine-tenths cover".

[eggs]

It grants "nine-tenths cover", which does not exist in 3.5 (the conditions being reduced to cover and total cover). It also says it functions like a tower shield.
Good call. Another guy in my group caught that too. I forgot how crazy Cover was in 3.0.

[DoughGuy]

Unfortunately, that'd be the same as giving a limited version of fortification, in that he wouldn't be able to be sneak attacked due to flanking - far too valuable a bonus for a relatively cheap price.

Perhaps just eliminating the +2 bonus, but still allowing sneak attack damage?

[Leekos]

There is a "Shield and Pike Style" feat in Dragon Magazine 338 that lets you use a two handed pole arm with reach and still have the full benefit of a light shield equipped.

I imagine that to be similar to the combat style of "300" with a shield slung over the back, using the shield hand to guide the pole arm and the other hand to thrust. May be close to what you're looking for

[Tahlspar Ka'nes]

Thanks for the replies.

Not counting sneak attacks, it would seem that combat can basically come from any direction - and it is possible to have a quick look over the shoulder for any threat - so, the AC basically provides multi-directional defence.

With that in mind, I thought that since what this person wants is a passive defence, only the enchantment bonus (if any) would apply.

Wearing the shield on the back, an un-enchanted shield would most likely buckle, splinter or otherwise be ruined by the first solid blow it has to deal with.

[sonofzeal]

Yes, a shield can be strapped to your back and still protect you.

It's called "armor", and it's basically a whole system of strapping small shields all over your body. You might have heard of it. :smallcool:

[whibla]

... With that in mind, I thought that since what this person wants is a passive defence, only the enchantment* bonus (if any) would apply.

Wearing the shield on the back, an un-enchanted shield would most likely buckle, splinter or otherwise be ruined by the first solid blow it has to deal with.

You're the DM, you can rule it anyway you like...

...however, in game terms that really doesn't make much sense, I'm afraid.

If all he wants is a passive defence then what he needs is natural armour, armour (or deflection, if we're also dealing with 'pure' magical bonuses) plus any enhancement bonuses to that armour. A shield bonus is an active defence, and any enhancement bonus to that shield bonus would also necessitate an active defence.

As for the durability, or lack thereof, of a non-magical shield as opposed to a magical shield, there is a difference: "Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to a shield’s hardness and +10 to its hit points." However, shields, wielded or not, take no damage from a normal attack. They only suffer damage when an opponent makes a successful Sunder attempt on them.

As I said, though, it's your game. Rule it which ever way you like, but I'd suggest that you bear a few things in mind.

1. When a combat sequence occurs and an attack misses, it's not clear why it missed. Was it the armour, which stopped the blow, or was it the defender's quick reflexes (Dex bonus) which stopped the blow striking a vulnerable spot (a gap in the armour). When a movie sequence shows a defender spinning round and the attack is deflected off something he's wearing (be that a slung shield, a vambrace, the bible in his pocket, whatever..) is it the object which is providing that armour bonus, or, as seems more likely to me, his dexterity that enabled him to avoid taking damage from the attack?

2. If you do allow enhancement bonuses from slung shields to add to armour class why would anyone bother wielding their magic shield? Surely it's far better to stow the Shield +5 (gaining a 'free' 5 points of AC) and wield another shield, certainly gaining the base shield bonus, and possbily gaining a second shield enhancement bonus too. In addition, the AC trade off with two-handed weapons now becomes significantly less of an issue. Wear a shield, wield a two-handed sword...profit!

3. Of course, what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If the players can do it, then so can their opponents...

*A bit nit-picky I realise, but when you enchant a piece of armour, or a shield, they gain an enhancement bonus. And like the name suggests the enhanced item gets better at what it does. Enhanced armour provides a greater armour bonus, and enhanced shield increases the shield bonus it provides. The type of protection gained doesn't change...

[Ashtagon]

If you allow the "back shield" to grant only its magical bonuses, be aware that the players will in short order abuse this by having two tricked-out magic shields each, which will in effect give them an extra magic item equipment slot.

[Kudaku]

Or if attacked from behind, where it would actually block the blow.

The ruling I suggested would reflect that in that he is "turning his back on his enemy" in order to leave the target square. Since D&D doesn't actually cover facing in any way, this was as close as I could get to the original concept.

[dascarletm]

If you allow the "back shield" to grant only its magical bonuses, be aware that the players will in short order abuse this by having two tricked-out magic shields each, which will in effect give them an extra magic item equipment slot.

This. You should remember that magic items are Divas. They won't let any other Items share the spotlight. Rings are slightly better allowing a co-star role, but it takes great feat to get 3 or four on there even though there should be space for eight.:smallbiggrin:

[grarrrg]

Obligatory link (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/08/15/episode-068-it-sounds-like-a-good-idea-to-me/)

"We strap the extras to our backs to improve rear AC value"

*Note:very possibly the first time that comic has been linked to NOT for the Sword-Chucks reference, yo!

[Invader]

Is he wearing any kind of actual armor? If he is then he gets that AC and a shield on his back wouldn't do anything more. If he's not wearing any armor I could see giving him some kind of bonus.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Since it's already been brought up for the kappa shell, I'm going to point out the cahar-aina in OA. It basically does what your player wants, though it has limitations on the armors that it can be used with. Between a chainshirt, a cahar-aina, and a pair of dastana you can really do some stacking abuse on armor enhancements.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'm pretty sure a shield strapped to your back gave you some bonus to AC against attacks from the back in AD&D

[Tahlspar Ka'nes]

I've also just found out that, if you have a +1 BAB or higher, the shield can be equipped as a free action, combined with a move action (such as drawing a weapon).

He can still wear the shield on his back, but it gives no benefit to AC unless he uses it as it should be used.

He's also upgraded his armour (leather to mithral shirt), so that is yet another reason to not allow the shield as a passive defence.

When it comes to having a shield slung over your back though, is it still possible to wear a backpack, or carry a bow? Would the shield take up too much space, or is there some solution to work around that?

[Ashtagon]

When it comes to having a shield slung over your back though, is it still possible to wear a backpack, or carry a bow? Would the shield take up too much space, or is there some solution to work around that?

This is a whole other can of worms you're about to open. If you try to enforce realistic encumbrance rules (not weight, which not many bother with anyway, but places to put things), just about every fighter who ever bothered to plan for ranged combat will be giving up the bow.

It's in my house rules to do this restriction, but do be aware it makes for far grittier play than your players may be used to.

[dextercorvia]

Facing is never a problem, with 3.5's omidirectional facing. The Kappa Shield is hilarious (+10 AC, +4 Relfex saves, and Evasion as long as you're Prone and walking like a turtle), and I'm not finding anything that says it's even Exotic.


Get a +34 modifier on your Tumble checks, wear a Mithral Kappa Shield (enchant it for a bonus on Tumble, and minimize ACP), and drop prone (free action) when things try to hit you, then immediately stand back up (another free action)... I want to play this character now.

Except for speaking, I'm pretty sure you can only perform a free action on your turn.

[sonofzeal]

Except for speaking, I'm pretty sure you can only perform a free action on your turn.
You can, however, drop prone as a free action at the end of every turn, and stand up as a free action at the beginning of your next one.

[Ashtagon]

You can, however, drop prone as a free action at the end of every turn, and stand up as a free action at the beginning of your next one.

Thanks for lamp-shading that. It's a prime example of the kind of cheese I wanted to exclude.

[whibla]

When it comes to having a shield slung over your back though, is it still possible to wear a backpack, or carry a bow? Would the shield take up too much space, or is there some solution to work around that?

I have always taken "slung over your back" as a convenient short-hand for stowed somewhere, no longer providing benefits. It could just as easily be hooked onto your backpack as onto your back.

Similarly, unless you're worrying about realistic issues such as having to string your bow before you can use it (bows really do not 'benefit' from being strung for extended periods of time), I wouldn't worry about exactly where they're being carried. Strapped to a pack, carried in hand, worn over the shoulder held there by the bowstring *shudder*, carried in a Quiver of Ehlonna... it's all 'believable', imo.

[Tahlspar Ka'nes]

Oriental Adventures (1e) had the horo: "Horo: This is an unusual, yet simple protection that is sometimes worn by mounted warriors. It is simply several long strips of cloth sewn together. One end is tied at the neck and the other near the waist. When riding, the cloth fills with wind and balloons out behind the rider. When used in this method, it is only effective when the wearer is riding. Alternatively, a wicker skeleton can be worn underneath the horo, allowing it to work at all times. The horo improves the wearer's armour class by 1 against missile weapons shot at the back of the character only. It has no other protective use. The horo is usually brightly coloured and decorated with the crest of the owner. This helps identify the rider by his family and lets all know that he is more than just a common soldier." This is probably the nearest thing to any kind of historical back-mounted "shield".

Was there ever any attempt to replicate this into 3.5? A different player in the campaign has taken on a samurai - and whilst this only gives a slight bonus against missile attacks - it might seem like something he'd be interested in.

Just to be different, of course.

[dextercorvia]

You can, however, drop prone as a free action at the end of every turn, and stand up as a free action at the beginning of your next one.

While true, a prone character takes a -4 penalty to AC against melee attacks, negating a good portion of the benefit of that shield.

[Godskook]

You can, however, drop prone as a free action at the end of every turn, and stand up as a free action at the beginning of your next one.

Yeah, with magic. Without it, standing up is a move action, and a vital part of the why tripper builds work.

[Curmudgeon]

Yeah, with magic. Without it, standing up is a move action, and a vital part of the why tripper builds work.
No magic is required ─ just a DC 35 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#tumble). You will, however, provoke AoOs whenever you stand up from prone, even as a free action.

[Downysole]

When it comes to having a shield slung over your back though, is it still possible to wear a backpack, or carry a bow? Would the shield take up too much space, or is there some solution to work around that?

There are no slots for anything except magical equipment. You could say that you have a two-handed sword strapped on, a backpack on top of that with a bow slid through the straps and a shield covering all of THAT and then still have room for a Cloak of Resistance...but you can't cover that up with a Cloak of Elvenkind and still get the bonus.

[Godskook]

No magic is required ─ just a DC 35 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#tumble). You will, however, provoke AoOs whenever you stand up from prone, even as a free action.

Huh, never seen that one, but to my point, its still an exception, not the rule, as it requires not-insignificant pumping to a particular skill to reach reliably.

[Razanir]

Can I get the full stats on the kappa shield? It sounds neat, but I don't have any non-core (other than Complete Adventurer and Arms & Equipment). Namely, ACP, weight and price

[VGLordR2]

Can I get the full stats on the kappa shield? It sounds neat, but I don't have any non-core (other than Complete Adventurer and Arms & Equipment). Namely, ACP, weight and price

30 GP, 45 lbs., 50% ASF, -10 ACP. You get no benefit unless you are moving on all fours, halving your movement speed. You get +10 AC, +4 Reflex, 9/10 cover (not sure how that translates to 3.5), and you effectively get Improved Evasion.

[Razanir]

30 GP, 45 lbs., 50% ASF, -10 ACP. You get no benefit unless you are moving on all fours, halving your movement speed. You get +10 AC, +4 Reflex, 9/10 cover (not sure how that translates to 3.5), and you effectively get Improved Evasion.

I think it would just be cover. I checked the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) and it sounds like there are three states- no cover (wide open), cover (hiding behind something), total cover (how do you even see the target?!)

[grarrrg]

Yeah, with magic. Without it, standing up is a move action, and a vital part of the why tripper builds work.


No magic is required ─ just a DC 35 Tumble check (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#tumble). You will, however, provoke AoOs whenever you stand up from prone, even as a free action.

2 levels of Pathfinder Rogue with the Stand Up (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo---rogue-talents/stand-up-ex) talent, and the Monkey Style (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/monkey-style-combat-style)* feat laugh at your pitiful "AoO's" and "DC 35 skill checks".


*You'll need 3 extra levels for Feat Reqs OR 1 level of either a Monk or Fighter archetype to qualify.

[Prime32]

30 GP, 45 lbs., 50% ASF, -10 ACP. You get no benefit unless you are moving on all fours, halving your movement speed. You get +10 AC, +4 Reflex, 9/10 cover (not sure how that translates to 3.5), and you effectively get Improved Evasion.Specifically, those benefits are the effects of 9/10 cover (http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/coverconceal.htm).

[Ashtagon]

Was there ever any attempt to replicate this into 3.5? A different player in the campaign has taken on a samurai - and whilst this only gives a slight bonus against missile attacks - it might seem like something he'd be interested in.

Just to be different, of course.

afaik, the horo was never rendered in 3.x terms. But you can probably just copy the stats right over from the 1e book.

If you do add it and allow it to be enchanted, think carefully about how it interacts with magic item slot rules and armour/shield bonus stacking.