Shields Variant Rules

[Larkas]

Are there any?

I've been considering giving shields a bonus based on BAB and Dex (stated bonus + BAB + Dex modifier - 2 to tower shields due to their unwieldiness; bucklers wouldn't benefit from this), but I'd like to know if something along those lines were ever done "officially".

[VoxRationis]

I'm not sure about official variants, but your formula would make tower shields strictly inferior to heavy shields, except for the ability to take total cover.

[Averis Vol]

I'm not sure about official variants, but your formula would make tower shields strictly inferior to heavy shields, except for the ability to take total cover.

They already are strictly inferior. They limit you dex bonus, give you a minus to hit, you can't shield bash with them.....basically all they are good for is tricking the enemy into thinking you actually use one and therefore are not a threat.

[Larkas]

I'm not sure about official variants, but your formula would make tower shields strictly inferior to heavy shields, except for the ability to take total cover.

I'm okay with that. They are not supposed to be used anywhere short of a military campaign.

[drack]

I give them to NPC and PC soldiar types all the time. They're handy and sometimes I'll even give it to a sword and board so they can fight special enemies. =\

[Shining Wrath]

In 4e your shield bonus adds to your Reflex save.

Allowing a fighter-type to add BAB to shield AC bonusturns them from not-so-good into massively useful. At lower levels it would probably be superior to THF.

[Ellowryn]

I like this idea, cause it actually makes shields useful as something other than getting extra slots to add magic enchants, but why Dex to AC and not Str? The whole point of the shield is to either absorb the incoming blow, or to turn the blow away so it doesn't cleave you in two. Dex is more for getting out of the way of the blow to begin with, rendering a shield mostly moot.

So something like Stated Bonus + BaB + Str.

[Larkas]

I give them to NPC and PC soldiar types all the time. They're handy and sometimes I'll even give it to a sword and board so they can fight special enemies. =\

That doesn't make them useless or anything. They'd still have a higher base AC than a large shield, for example. Still, limiting max Dex might be enough.


In 4e your shield bonus adds to your Reflex save.

Allowing a fighter-type to add BAB to shield AC bonusturns them from not-so-good into massively useful. At lower levels it would probably be superior to THF.

Hmmm, that's good food for thought, but I don't think it would be the case. Getting rid of enemies is still the best way to winning a fight, and THF still does that better. This variant rule is just to increase sword n board viability and enable the creation of super defensive builds.


I like this idea, cause it actually makes shields useful as something other than getting extra slots to add magic enchants, but why Dex to AC and not Str? The whole point of the shield is to either absorb the incoming blow, or to turn the blow away so it doesn't cleave you in two. Dex is more for getting out of the way of the blow to begin with, rendering a shield mostly moot.

So something like Stated Bonus + BaB + Str.

My reasoning is that, for a shield to be useful, it actually has to intercept an incoming blow, otherwise your ability to sustain a block becomes pretty much useless. I could see the argument for a feat/trait/class ability to do just that, though.

[drack]

Actually the dex limit is never any concern when I use them, it's the -2 attack that hurts the most.

[Larkas]

Actually the dex limit is never any concern when I use them, it's the -2 attack that hurts the most.

It could be under this variant, though.

[drack]

No, I mean I just don't use them if they cause dex problems. ;}

[Averis Vol]

I like this idea, cause it actually makes shields useful as something other than getting extra slots to add magic enchants, but why Dex to AC and not Str? The whole point of the shield is to either absorb the incoming blow, or to turn the blow away so it doesn't cleave you in two. Dex is more for getting out of the way of the blow to begin with, rendering a shield mostly moot.

So something like Stated Bonus + BaB + Str.

Contrary to how the game portrays it, combat isn't about who puts the most force into their blows, in fact, its close to the opposite. Combat is about fluidity, timing, and the ability to predict and adapt to your opponents. This goes even moreso for a shield, because most of the times unless you were a wealthy knight, your protection besides your shield was leather or some loose chain, so you wanted to be agile enough to get that hunk of steel and wood between you and your enemy best as possible.

[drack]

Depends on the fighting style. When you're a big guy who can keep a heavy shield between you two you don't want to keep moving around, that'll wear you out first. Timing and fluidity is still a thing, but it isn't the only thing. I'd say hitting hard and toting a big shield can help as much as fluidity and timing, and that some of each helps more.

[Larkas]

No, I mean I just don't use them if they cause dex problems. ;}

Ooooooh! Gotcha! :smallsmile:


Contrary to how the game portrays it, combat isn't about who puts the most force into their blows, in fact, its close to the opposite. Combat is about fluidity, timing, and the ability to predict and adapt to your opponents. This goes even moreso for a shield, because most of the times unless you were a wealthy knight, your protection besides your shield was leather or some loose chain, so you wanted to be agile enough to get that hunk of steel and wood between you and your enemy best as possible.

I wouldn't have put it in better words :smallredface:

[Ellowryn]

And i dont disagree with the whole Dex thing, and it makes sense to have your dex modifier be applied to your AC, but wielding a shield does required strength. Just putting a shield or similar object in the way does not mean it stopped the blow. It requires strength to counter or deflect an attack. Is moving your body out of the way of an attack while putting your shield in the way a good tactic, of course! But avoiding a blow is already covered with dex being added to AC with or without a shield.

Along those lines, i also believe that martial types should get some sort of bonus to AC in melee. Wielding a sword in a fight isnt just throwing a swing at a your opponent and then just trying to get out of the way of his swing, but rather a series of parries and strikes. Obviously the bonus should be less than a shield, but something like the bonus to attack from the weapon + str modifier if you are wielding the weapon in two hands, half str is wielding in 1 hand. With it being a shield bonus so it wouldn't actually stack with a shield, and only works against someone you are in melee with. I dont think that sounds to powerful, but i dont know.

[drack]

And while we're still into gritty realism it takes serious endurance to keep it up for any stretch of time...

[Larkas]

And i dont disagree with the whole Dex thing, and it makes sense to have your dex modifier be applied to your AC, but wielding a shield does required strength. Just putting a shield or similar object in the way does not mean it stopped the blow. It requires strength to counter or deflect an attack. Is moving your body out of the way of an attack while putting your shield in the way a good tactic, of course! But avoiding a blow is already covered with dex being added to AC with or without a shield.

Along those lines, i also believe that martial types should get some sort of bonus to AC in melee. Wielding a sword in a fight isnt just throwing a swing at a your opponent and then just trying to get out of the way of his swing, but rather a series of parries and strikes. Obviously the bonus should be less than a shield, but something like the bonus to attack from the weapon + str modifier if you are wielding the weapon in two hands, half str is wielding in 1 hand. With it being a shield bonus so it wouldn't actually stack with a shield, and only works against someone you are in melee with. I dont think that sounds to powerful, but i dont know.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110820025843/templates/images/b/b2/Eusa_doh.gif I totally forgot that Dex was already added to AC... I don't think double-dipping would be advisable... I'll think about it.

Anyways, on to your point, I can understand what you're saying, I'm just not convinced that adding Str to AC without any special training would make much sense. Ideally, you want to position your shield so attacks will glance off it. Taking those attacks head-on (shield-on?) might not be such a good idea (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/axe_test_leather_cut4.jpg). Now, you could be trained to forcibly bounce off attacks (or do so without training by taking a full defense/fight defensively action; maybe fold the ability to do that normally into Improved Shield Bash). But I just don't feel that's desirable without special training.

On to your second point, I was actually considering adding that to Two-Weapon Defense. It might make sense to brew something for one-weapon styles, though it would certainly require some resource expenditure (i.e.: THF is already better enough than the other styles as it is).

[Averis Vol]

And while we're still into gritty realism it takes serious endurance to keep it up for any stretch of time...

Yea, your normal, averagely fit person can go toe to toe with someone, unarmed or armor, for about 30 seconds before they slow down. I can't imagine trying to do it in full mail.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe a tower shield could constantly give you the benefits of cover, in addition to the bonuses which heavy shields do. Then it gives improved cover (+8 AC) while fighting defensively, or total cover (can't be targeted by nonmagical attacks) if you surrender that round's attacks. Also, you could use it to get a bonus when bull-rushing or shield-bashing people.

Personally, I think shields make more sense if you just model armor as damage-reduction. Then shields simply add a sizable portion to the damage reduction and your job is done.


Yea, your normal, averagely fit person can go toe to toe with someone, unarmed or armor, for about 30 seconds before they slow down. I can't imagine trying to do it in full mail.

Well, you don't give "averagely fit" people the big expensive armor, now do you? You give heavy armor to the tough-as-nails folk who are extensively trained and conditioned to kill their fellow man while encumbered by such protective gear.

Also, in D&D, "averagely fit" (or at least the adult human average) is Strength 10, Dex 10, Con 10. Which is practically suicide if you get into any sort of serious combat. Like you really shouldn't get anywhere near a fight with those scores.

[drack]

Maybe a tower shield could constantly give you the benefits of cover, in addition to the bonuses which heavy shields do. Then it gives improved cover (+8 AC) while fighting defensively, or total cover (can't be targeted by nonmagical attacks) if you surrender that round's attacks. Also, you could use it to get a bonus when bull-rushing or shield-bashing people.

Tower shields, it seems, are one of the big debates in D&D. Some people say you can't do anything while being granted full cover, others say it's a standard action, some that it's a free action, or a standard to raise, free to maintain. Then there's that while common sense dictates you get a 5'X5' wall for all intents and purposes except for targeted spells, the RAW says you get total cover, and total cover everywhere is powerful. Personally I tend to fall towards the middle where it's a standard to use, free to maintain, and works in one direction. I tend to allow double wielding in this respect to grant cover from two directions too if players want to. That said while tower shields are immune to all ranged attacks they can generally be sundered easily enough. ;}

Just some fun tower shield facts.

[Qc Storm]

I remember playing with a DM with a set of custom rules for shields.

At any time after an attack roll/Reflex save, you could instead opt to completely protect yourself with your shield. Doing this would grant you a very high DR against the incoming attack (I think it was 10 DR per 1 shield AC?). However, the downside was that the shield shattered.

Served as a great panic button, and a cool theatrical effect. You could also do this to replace a failed reflex save for an instant success, also shattering the shield.

Broken shields could be repaired by someone with ranks in armorsmithing, with time depending on a skill check.

This ability was not available for bucklers and flying shields.

[Slipperychicken]

Tower shields, it seems, are one of the big debates in D&D. Some people say you can't do anything while being granted full cover, others say it's a standard action, some that it's a free action, or a standard to raise, free to maintain. Then there's that while common sense dictates you get a 5'X5' wall for all intents and purposes except for targeted spells, the RAW says you get total cover, and total cover everywhere is powerful. Personally I tend to fall towards the middle where it's a standard to use, free to maintain, and works in one direction. I tend to allow double wielding in this respect to grant cover from two directions too if players want to. That said while tower shields are immune to all ranged attacks they can generally be sundered easily enough. ;}

Just some fun tower shield facts.

That partly results from omni-directional facing (the same logic which gives us threatened squares), partly from a poorly-written entry on tower sheilds.

Pathfinder makes it so your tower shield only provides cover on one side of your square, which seems silly in practice, as a trained user should be able to quickly rotate himself (shield included) to wherever he needs to face. Those rules would just treat it like someone runs at you from the side, and you just stand there like a dope with your shield facing 90 degrees in the wrong direction. If tower shields were that unwieldly in real life, it's doubtful anyone would have used them at all.

[Larkas]

Personally, I think shields make more sense if you just model armor as damage-reduction. Then shields simply add a sizable portion to the damage reduction and your job is done.

Interestingly, under the official variant, shields are the only thing short of Dex that still add to AC (vs. to DR).

[drack]

That partly results from omni-directional facing (the same logic which gives us threatened squares), partly from a poorly-written entry on tower sheilds.

Pathfinder makes it so your tower shield only provides cover on one side of your square, which seems silly in practice, as a trained user should be able to quickly rotate himself (shield included) to wherever he needs to face. Those rules would just treat it like someone runs at you from the side, and you just stand there like a dope with your shield facing 90 degrees in the wrong direction. If tower shields were that unwieldly in real life, it's doubtful anyone would have used them at all.
Yup. Still I use them often enough because they're handy for blasts, breaths, and the like, and they can also make nice formations and cover your advance over a distance.

After all, shields as large as tower shields were commonly used either in militant formations, or to hide behind to avoid vollies of arrows, both functions that they still perform admirably in D&D regardless. (gotta love the shield having immunity to most ranged attacks)

[VoxRationis]

That partly results from omni-directional facing (the same logic which gives us threatened squares), partly from a poorly-written entry on tower sheilds.

Pathfinder makes it so your tower shield only provides cover on one side of your square, which seems silly in practice, as a trained user should be able to quickly rotate himself (shield included) to wherever he needs to face. Those rules would just treat it like someone runs at you from the side, and you just stand there like a dope with your shield facing 90 degrees in the wrong direction. If tower shields were that unwieldly in real life, it's doubtful anyone would have used them at all.

Formations, particularly heavy shield formations, are notoriously vulnerable to being flanked; the Romans conquered the Greeks largely because they recognized this. Only guarding 1 side is probably a little too harsh, but "tower shield" is not equal to "360 degree wall of invulnerability".

[Larkas]

Both D&D and PF don't have facing rules. It doesn't make sense to institute this kind of rule if it's only going to be applied in one single aspect of the game. Besides, it's a game with giant flying lizards spitting cones of fire and medium flying wizards revising reality at will. Suspending disbelief regarding the vulnerability of tower shields is not asking too much. Besides, that's already modeled well enough by the listed maximum Dex.

Since we're on the subject, I'd also drop the ruling that says that a spellcaster can target the tower shield to affect the wielder. If you need any reasoning besides the obvious, follow mine: if you're touching a wooden wall that gives you total cover, you still can't be targeted by spells. Besides, you could equip your tower shield with a folding stand, and instead of taking a full defense action, you could take a full-round (I'd even argue standard) action to set it as a portable wall. You'd still have full cover, and couldn't be targeted by any spells. Why make the player jump through hoops to do something he could do anyway?

[Fouredged Sword]

You should look up the class bonus to AC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm) variant rules in the SRD. They pair well with the armor as DR rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm). At low levels, your shield, your skill, and your dex are mostly what keeps you from being stabbed, as armor provides a MUCH lower defense bonus that is likely overwritten by your class bonus. Fighters get harder to hit as they get better at fighting, regardless of the armor they wear. Shields flatly add to AC, and that becomes rare.

Stacking the rules heavily boosts the power of AC, as high values of AC are available at very low levels, and at much lower cost. AC as a defense holds up for another 4-5 levels. DR also makes low level heavy armor characters very tough. This lowers the lethality of low level combat and makes the fighter MUCH better at staying alive at said levels. It does discourage multiclassing as you only take the highest offered bonus, and I would think that something should be done about PRC's to allow them to advance class defense bonuses at least to a degree.

[Larkas]

You should look up the class bonus to AC (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm) variant rules in the SRD. They pair well with the armor as DR rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/armorAsDamageReduction.htm). At low levels, your shield, your skill, and your dex are mostly what keeps you from being stabbed, as armor provides a MUCH lower defense bonus that is likely overwritten by your class bonus. Fighters get harder to hit as they get better at fighting, regardless of the armor they wear. Shields flatly add to AC, and that becomes rare.

Stacking the rules heavily boosts the power of AC, as high values of AC are available at very low levels, and at much lower cost. AC as a defense holds up for another 4-5 levels. DR also makes low level heavy armor characters very tough. This lowers the lethality of low level combat and makes the fighter MUCH better at staying alive at said levels. It does discourage multiclassing as you only take the highest offered bonus, and I would think that something should be done about PRC's to allow them to advance class defense bonuses at least to a degree.

Wow, thanks for the link! I don't quite like the class breakdown, though, I'd tie the defense bonus to the BAB of a class, not its armor proficiency. I also think you misread the variant: it actually encourages multiclassing (for lower bonus classes, at least), as it takes the class with the higher bonus and uses it to find out bonus/level. This also means PrCs don't have to advance the bonus (though they might increase your bonus if it gives you a heavier armor proficiency).

[Fouredged Sword]

Well, kinda. It makes multiclassing more complicated because you get the highest bonus you would get from your highest level in each individual class you take. A wizard would not get any further defense bonus from dipping fighter after level 12 as his wizard level 12 defense bonus would be higher than his fighter 1 defense bonus. This tends to hurt melee characters who dip other melee classes in roughly equal amounts where as in the standard rules they almost don't notice that 2 level barbarian dip on a fighter 3 / barbarian 2 build. It's not that much different, but it is noticeable if your dips stretch out more than a level or two.

Now, I am all for tying this whole thing to bab. Maybe give a flat bonus for armor prof (based on class) and then a fraction of the class's bab as an additional bonus. I would consider taking the monster bonus from armor prof table and applying that to the characters, then give them half their bab as a defense bonus. It's a little swinger than the listed set, but it would work out fairly well.

I would even give the bonus retroactively, so wizard who dips fighter gains a one time +4 to his defense bonus from acquiring heavy armor prof.

[Larkas]

Gah, you're right! I simplified things in my head. Hmmmm... I'll consider this variant. If nothing else, it serves as a starting point to brew my own! :smallredface:

[Averis Vol]

Well, you don't give "averagely fit" people the big expensive armor, now do you? You give heavy armor to the tough-as-nails folk who are extensively trained and conditioned to kill their fellow man while encumbered by such protective gear.

Also, in D&D, "averagely fit" (or at least the adult human average) is Strength 10, Dex 10, Con 10. Which is practically suicide if you get into any sort of serious combat. Like you really shouldn't get anywhere near a fight with those scores.

Oh, absolutely. But I don't have any statistics on those kinds of massively ripped people. :smallbiggrin: