Goblin Shield?

[GutterFace]

So every now and again I end up here with nonsense i have to ask. Some of you have been dealing with my questions for a long time, so i thank you.
I wish i could take credit for all the things i have to ask. but sadly they are not all mine, since a lot of my table mates just aren't forum people (we're old), i am always here asking.

Anyways in this round of what if, our Goliath Fighter (Champion), dropped his shield to pick up a dead goblin by the leg and use him as a great club.
He then decided to hold the goblin with 1 hand and use him as a shield and draw his sword (on his next turn).

im assuming based on weight to strength (and size) ratio this is OK.
BUT would the goblin be +2 to ac like a shield? or would it count as some type of cover?

and yes the goblin is far more....um soft than a shield. so before physics gets involved, lets see if we can clear up the meat of this issue.

[SharkForce]

i wouldn't allow you to use it as the piece of equipment shield. it's vastly more heavy, doesn't provide even cover (there's gaps all over), and will be flopping around all over the place. i'd be inclined to say that any defensive benefits would at best be equalled by the defensive drawbacks. truthfully, it would probably make you less able to defend due to the mobility loss, but i don't think it would be enough to be worth disadvantage and 5e pretty much doesn't model anything less than that, plus why not let the guy whack things with a dead goblin without added penalty.

i'd probably allow something that was a bit closer to a makeshift shield (say, a large beetle) to be used. but a goblin really just isn't a shield, or even close to being one.

[Giant2005]

I'd be more inclined to allow the Goblin to be used as a shield than a great club.
The rules on shields in 5e are very... liberal. If a tiny buckler offers +2 to AC, then a Goblin should provide the same bonus due to covering a much greater surface area. Although there is a chance of his body being too fragile to stop an incoming attack in the first place - I'd house rule that any attack that could kill that Goblin outright if he was at full health (Inflict double his HP in damage) would bypass the shield by going straight through it.

As for the great club, it would require tremendous force to get the same effect out of a limp corpse as you would a stiff piece of wood. You would need to swing it fast enough to generate enough air resistance to keep him erect or he would be too unwieldy. You would also need to swing it hard enough to counter for the softness of the body lowering the impact force by rolling with the blow and absorbing half of the energy that was intended for the still living victim. Compensating in that way isn't really possible because if you could swing with that kind of force, you could always to more by swinging with that same kind of force with an actual great club.

[Ralanr]

Why not just +1 AC? It's more squishy than an actual shield, so it probably won't block as much as an actual shield.

[Slipperychicken]

im assuming based on weight to strength (and size) ratio this is OK.
BUT would the goblin be +2 to ac like a shield? or would it count as some type of cover?

and yes the goblin is far more....um soft than a shield. so before physics gets involved, lets see if we can clear up the meat of this issue.

I think it's reasonable to count a human shield (goblin shield?) as soft cover (i.e. half cover), then use that optional rule about damaging cover. So the fighter would get +2 AC, the bonus on dex saves, and anything that misses him by 2 or less hits the goblin instead. When the goblin is dead, it's mangled enough to stop being useful as cover. Maybe only let it give +1 AC because it's so much smaller than the goliath?

I'd want to include some kind of penalty, like making the fighter take disadvantage on attacks during rounds in which he uses the goblin as a shield. That penalty is because the fighter is occupied trying to hold the goblin still.

[Mr.Moron]

It's oddly shaped, fragile, and more than a bit on the floppy side. I'd probably just rule it being +1 AC that's destroyed the first time melee attack or critical hit lands, but that's me. I'd also probably ask the character in question to please stop doing it, as it's unpleasant.

That said, there certainly isn't anything degenerate about using a goblin body as a shield, given the game is already accounts for shields and they're cheap enough that a "Free" on isn't meaningful. So it really comes down to the tone of the game. Picking up bodies for use as weapons/shields is both bit icky and goofy for my tastes but there isn't any mechanical reason not to do it.

[Hawkstar]

Why not just +1 AC? It's more squishy than an actual shield, so it probably won't block as much as an actual shield.

Actually, its squishiness may make it a somewhat better shield for taking blows - padding = Shock Absorbers.

[Darth_Versity]

I'd just let him count it as a normal shield. He could have just kept his original shield without problems but chose to use the goblin for cinematic effect, I see no reason to punish someone for making a more enjoyable story

[Person_Man]

Rule of Cool. Let the player use dead bodies as improvised weapons and shields without nerfing them for doing so. It doesn't unbalance anything, and its awesome.

As an addendum, if your players ever try improvised Actions ("I want to swing from the chandelier, kick over the statue, and have it land on the goblins below!") I strongly suggest that you resolve it with 1 roll using whatever Skill or ability check makes the most sense for the situation, set the DC to the level of difficulty you think is appropriate, and then have the results match the level of difficulty (success in a very difficult stunt = very effective outcome).

Avoid the temptation to break things up into multiple rolls (Acrobatics to swing, attack roll to kick over the statue, then a Reflex Save for the goblins below) or provide "half a loaf" results (+1 AC for using a goblin as a shield when a mundane shield provides +2 AC) even if you think it "makes more sense" - because doing so makes a successful outcome dramatically less likely, it slows down the game, and it discourages the players from being creative.

[Darth_Versity]

Rule of Cool...

What he said. That more or less is exactly how I'd work these situations. If you punish the players for creative thinking they're less likely to think in future.

[Shining Wrath]

Anyone sufficiently strong can use a dead goblin as a shield.

In fact, if a very strong Medium sized character wanted to use a LIVING goblin for a shield, I might allow it ... with the usual proviso that my ogres just may wield you as a shield tomorrow. Make grapple check, then a Strength(Athletics) check to successfully wield the goblin.

If the goblin stops an attack (there's a 10% chance per attack), he may become a dead goblin. Sucks to be him ...

[Mr.Moron]

Rule of Cool. Let the player use dead bodies as improvised weapons and shields without nerfing them for doing so. It doesn't unbalance anything, and its awesome.

This is pretty subjective. Your "Cool" and "Awesome", is kind of my "Really unpleasant and more than a little bit goofy".

I'd certainly have a hard time enjoying my own game or being invested in the PCs if they were constantly strapping corpses to their arms and also swinging them at people instead of using more conventional equipment.

[ChubbyRain]

This is pretty subjective. Your "Cool" and "Awesome", is kind of my "Really unpleasant and more than a little bit goofy".

I'd certainly have a hard time enjoying my own game or being invested in the PCs if they were constantly strapping corpses to their arms and also swinging them at people instead of using more conventional equipment.

Brock Sampson is a good example as a dude who uses bodies as shields, weapons, and anything else he can get away with... And that is cool.

Just because you don't think it is cool for YOUR PC doesn't mean squat to me when I think its cool for MY PC. The only thing worst than an overly meddling DM is an overly meddling player.

We have a game where Bards sing their enemies to death, using a body to beat someone to death or block an attack is hardly " goofy".

[Mr.Moron]

Brock Sampson is a good example as a dude who uses bodies as shields, weapons, and anything else he can get away with... And that is cool.

Just because you don't think it is cool for YOUR PC doesn't mean squat to me when I think its cool for MY PC. The only thing worst than an overly meddling DM is an overly meddling player.

We have a game where Bards sing their enemies to death, using a body to beat someone to death or block an attack is hardly " goofy".

I strictly GM. I haven't played years, but even if I was a player It's still important everyone at the table have roughly the same expectations. If two players are at the table expecting a relative down-to-earth affair with classic fantasy action, while a third play walks in with "Sir CorpseAlot, wielder of body parts! Behold his mighty Orc-Head flail, and armor constructed entirely of gnome heads" players one and two are probably going to be put off, and rightfully so.

Yes, in my view holding a goblin in up in front of you instead of buying a real shield is goofy. "Goofy" is entirely subjective, it's strictly a matter of taste. Some people's tastes aren't going to run where they want the game to be a cross between Venture Brothers and Korgoth of Barbaria. Not those things are bad, but they're both incredibly goofy in my view.

[GutterFace]

I don't think my player was not intending on using it all the time. it was a stop gap measure in an encounter.
He's a champion. He succeeds by his strength and battle sense. This was a smart move on his part, i just wanted to see how we should rule it.

[ChubbyRain]

I strictly GM. I haven't played years, but even if I was a player It's still important everyone at the table have roughly the same expectations. If two players are at the table expecting a relative down-to-earth affair with classic fantasy action, while a third play walks in with "Sir CorpseAlot, wielder of body parts! Behold his mighty Orc-Head flail, and armor constructed entirely of gnome heads" players one and two are probably going to be put off, and rightfully so.

Yes, in my view holding a goblin in up in front of you instead of buying a real shield is goofy. "Goofy" is entirely subjective, it's strictly a matter of taste. Some people's tastes aren't going to run where they want the game to be a cross between Venture Brothers and Korgoth of Barbaria. Not those things are bad, but they're both incredibly goofy in my view.

Again, bards sing their targets to death. Fireballs act like liquids. A character can fall 200 feet, leave a no crater, and get up with just a bit of injury and swirly eyes (eyes are fluff, but then again most things are).

D&D is filled with silly things and yet you choose to screw over a player, or discourage a player, from doing something that not only works in real life (human shields) and something that is definitely awesome/cool/badass in movies and stories.

If I was at a table and you screwed over a player for doing this and used such a flimsy excuse as "goofy" I would get up and walk out. This is a sign of a DM that needs to get over themselves and remember that players are there to have fun.

Edit
What's worst is you are screwing over a PC base that needs all the help they can get. Everyone's defense for noncasters is that they can be more carible with skills like athletics and acrobatics. But it is DMs like you that prove that martials actually can not be as variable as the "defenae*" says so.

[Mr.Moron]

If I was at a table and you screwed over a player for doing this and used such a flimsy excuse as "goofy" I would get up and walk out. This is a sign of a DM that needs to get over themselves and remember that players are there to have fun.

I wouldn't miss you.

[SharkForce]

human shields are used for the protective value of making someone hesitant to shoot you for fear of hitting the shield, not because they are as good as an actual shield.

like i said, if you grabbed something reasonably shield-like, sure that works. if you're grabbing a goblin, well, to be perfectly honest, if you can effectively wield a goblin as a shield you can probably wield your arm with no goblin in it as a better shield.

[Magic Myrmidon]

A lot of my judgments come down to what I want to encourage in games. Typically, I allow and encourage stuff like this by giving not only base functionality, but some bonus. In this specific case, I'm not sure I'd do that, because yeah, using dead bodies as shields isn't quite the tone I typically go for. In the end, though, I'd probably allow it as a normal shield. If creative or alternative actions are always to be encouraged in your game, you should allow it.

Basically, consider what you want out of your players. When they do what you want, reward them for it. I want creativity and cool actions that aren't the typical "I hit it", so I always try to encourage it when it happens.

[ryan92084]

I'd allow it as temporary 2ac and either reduce the effectiveness down to 1 or no ac on subsequent hits. This would also be contingent on the condition of the body.

[Malifice]

The Goblin is definately an improvised weapon (1d4 B damage plus strength for mine). Its heavier than a club, but a lot softer!

I'd let a Goliath use it as a shield (maybe even tearing the poor things spine out to use as a handle!), however I would probably rule that after a few rounds, the Goblin is too torn up to be of any more benefit.

The above is Rules as Fun.

[MadBear]

for what it's worth, if I was GMing it, I'd allow it to work as a shield, but any attacks that missed by 2 or less would deal damage to the goblin, and if the goblin was dealt an amount of damage equal to it's hitpoints, it'd be rendered useless. That makes it fun and allows it to work. It'd be a more fiddly rule then most in 5e, but that's how I'd run it.

I do agree with Mr. Moron, that it should fit within your gaming dynamic though. It very well might, and in that case definitely allow it, but if it doesn't really fit the setting, maybe not. My group's pretty open about what we do/don't accept so the conversation would literally be 3 seconds of (PC1: Yep, PC2: yep, PC3: yep DM: Ok strap the little guy to your arm, here's how it'll work).

[GutterFace]

for what it's worth, if I was GMing it, I'd allow it to work as a shield, but any attacks that missed by 2 or less would deal damage to the goblin, and if the goblin was dealt an amount of damage equal to it's hitpoints, it'd be rendered useless. That makes it fun and allows it to work. It'd be a more fiddly rule then most in 5e, but that's how I'd run it.

I do agree with Mr. Moron, that it should fit within your gaming dynamic though. It very well might, and in that case definitely allow it, but if it doesn't really fit the setting, maybe not. My group's pretty open about what we do/don't accept so the conversation would literally be 3 seconds of (PC1: Yep, PC2: yep, PC3: yep DM: Ok strap the little guy to your arm, here's how it'll work).

I dig this.

this Fighter is a real enviromancer. he will use any and everything around to succeed. a true tactician and possibly a savant.

though sometimes I miss the dark, scary days of 3.0/3.5.....trophy collector....god i miss the screams

[Hawkstar]

human shields are used for the protective value of making someone hesitant to shoot you for fear of hitting the shield, not because they are as good as an actual shield.

like i said, if you grabbed something reasonably shield-like, sure that works. if you're grabbing a goblin, well, to be perfectly honest, if you can effectively wield a goblin as a shield you can probably wield your arm with no goblin in it as a better shield.

Not necessarily. Human shields do work to block blows as well. However, it's much easier to march carrying a 10-lb piece of wood than a 30-lb body. And, no, you can't use your arm with no goblin in it as a 'better shield' - If someone cuts your arm off, you're in pain and missing an arm. If someone cuts your goblin off... you're short a dead goblin, and nothing else.

The only disadvantages I'd give for improvised things like this is a penalty to movement and disadvantage on adventuring-style checks, discouraging players from carrying improvised tools from one scene to another.. and possibly improve its functionality (for at least a round) within the scene - after all, in order to use a Goblin as a shield, you first need to kill the goblin, then pick it up.

[Magic Myrmidon]

disadvantage on adventuring-style checks, discouraging players from carrying improvised tools from one scene to another..

I rather like this. It can be annoying when a player chops off an orc head with a plan to throw it at the next enemy they find. Then again, if they put it in their backpac, or something, I guess there's not disadvantage there. Might get some of their stuff dirty, though.

[Person_Man]

I strictly GM. I haven't played years, but even if I was a player It's still important everyone at the table have roughly the same expectations. If two players are at the table expecting a relative down-to-earth affair with classic fantasy action, while a third play walks in with "Sir CorpseAlot, wielder of body parts! Behold his mighty Orc-Head flail, and armor constructed entirely of gnome heads" players one and two are probably going to be put off, and rightfully so.

Yes, in my view holding a goblin in up in front of you instead of buying a real shield is goofy. "Goofy" is entirely subjective, it's strictly a matter of taste. Some people's tastes aren't going to run where they want the game to be a cross between Venture Brothers and Korgoth of Barbaria. Not those things are bad, but they're both incredibly goofy in my view.

I just want to say that Sir CorpseAlot is a hilarious name and character concept.

Years ago I think some old version of Warhammer tabletop combat had a ability where soldiers could jump in front of officers and take damage from an attack against them if the player rolled anything but a 1 on a check, and I abused this rule by having an uber potent officer (very expensive, but prone to getting killed quickly if the enemy got 1 lucky attack roll against him) leading a massive unit of Goblins (very cheap and otherwise useless). It was pretty ridiculous, and I regret not thinking of Sir CorpseAlot as a name for the officer.

Anywho, I understand people wanting to have serious games. I certainly feel that way myself most of the time. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't punish the players for being creative. Corpse wielding would be inferior to using a magic weapon, and less reliable then using a normal manufactured weapon, since the player would need to find new undamaged corpses every time they wanted to use one. But if a player feels like doing something interesting or different, I as a DM will generally find a way to let them try it out, because clearly they wouldn't ask to do it if it didn't make the game more fun for them. And if other players resent the "goofy" character, then we can all just have a beer together and talk about it after the game, which should resolve it before the next game. Chances are that the goofy player will tone it down, and the serious players will lighten up. Beer resolves virtually all player conflicts. Try it. If it doesn't work, try scotch.

[Shining Wrath]

I just want to say that Sir CorpseAlot is a hilarious name and character concept.

Years ago I think some old version of Warhammer tabletop combat had a ability where soldiers could jump in front of officers and take damage from an attack against them if the player rolled anything but a 1 on a check, and I abused this rule by having an uber potent officer (very expensive, but prone to getting killed quickly if the enemy got 1 lucky attack roll against him) leading a massive unit of Goblins (very cheap and otherwise useless). It was pretty ridiculous, and I regret not thinking of Sir CorpseAlot as a name for the officer.

Anywho, I understand people wanting to have serious games. I certainly feel that way myself most of the time. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't punish the players for being creative. Corpse wielding would be inferior to using a magic weapon, and less reliable then using a normal manufactured weapon, since the player would need to find new undamaged corpses every time they wanted to use one. But if a player feels like doing something interesting or different, I as a DM will generally find a way to let them try it out, because clearly they wouldn't ask to do it if it didn't make the game more fun for them. And if other players resent the "goofy" character, then we can all just have a beer together and talk about it after the game, which should resolve it before the next game. Chances are that the goofy player will tone it down, and the serious players will lighten up. Beer resolves virtually all player conflicts. Try it. If it doesn't work, try scotch.

The rules for improvised weapons explicitly mention a goblin corpse as a form of improvised weapon. The PHB itself, then, supports "goofy" play. Once you have goblin corpse weapons, goblin corpse shields are not far away.

It's pretty easy to impose penalties for wandering around with corpses for armor and weapons, though. Smell, disease, city guards who attack on sight, being followed by hungry otyughs, ...

[Easy_Lee]

The rules for improvised weapons explicitly mention a goblin corpse as a form of improvised weapon. The PHB itself, then, supports "goofy" play. Once you have goblin corpse weapons, goblin corpse shields are not far away.

Corpse shields would certainly make an interesting choice, being that they don't take time to strap on, weapons may have a chance of getting stuck in them, and certain creatures may not want to strike an ally's dead body. Also, they probably don't last very long.

They're probably unwieldy, but no more so than walking through a swamp all day while wearing full plate and carrying a hundred pounds of supplies. D&D characters do some crazy things.

[bellerah]

The Goblin shield should be providing Damage resistance rather than AC as it slows down blows. I would say it would be -2 up to 10 points at which point it is destroyed

[Mr.Moron]

I just want to say that Sir CorpseAlot is a hilarious name and character concept.

Years ago I think some old version of Warhammer tabletop combat had a ability where soldiers could jump in front of officers and take damage from an attack against them if the player rolled anything but a 1 on a check, and I abused this rule by having an uber potent officer (very expensive, but prone to getting killed quickly if the enemy got 1 lucky attack roll against him) leading a massive unit of Goblins (very cheap and otherwise useless). It was pretty ridiculous, and I regret not thinking of Sir CorpseAlot as a name for the officer.

Anywho, I understand people wanting to have serious games. I certainly feel that way myself most of the time. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't punish the players for being creative. Corpse wielding would be inferior to using a magic weapon, and less reliable then using a normal manufactured weapon, since the player would need to find new undamaged corpses every time they wanted to use one. But if a player feels like doing something interesting or different, I as a DM will generally find a way to let them try it out, because clearly they wouldn't ask to do it if it didn't make the game more fun for them. And if other players resent the "goofy" character, then we can all just have a beer together and talk about it after the game, which should resolve it before the next game. Chances are that the goofy player will tone it down, and the serious players will lighten up. Beer resolves virtually all player conflicts. Try it. If it doesn't work, try scotch.

What to me is a key point you're kind of ignoring is that there a big difference between punishment: actively harming a character, hindering their larger goals, removing spotlight time or forcing them to take a hit to their baseline capabilities and reward: helping a character, providing benefits, granting spotlight time, advancing their larger goals or expanding their baseline capabilities.

Saying "Holding up a dead goblin doesn't give you a shield bonus" isn't punishment because goblins don't grant shield bonuses anywhere in the framework of the game. Granting a shield bonus is a reward, it's saying: "You've thought of something not in the RAW that works within the context of the game world, the spirit of the rules, and aligned with the the tone of our game. Good Job! Here's some extra functionality".

To take an extreme example:
"I urinate on the king to gain his favor, because he looks like the kind of guy who is really into that"

That is certainly creative, and honestly a unique idea. However, I think in most games it wouldn't make sense in the context of the universe , isn't in the spirit of the rules and is probably a touch off-tone. In that case rewarding it: "Why yes. The king loves that you are pissing on him. Totally take advantage on the persuasion check to have him send the army to help!" is plainly stupid.

However it remains that all this is subjective. For some universes and some games maybe that's totally sensible and keeping in the tone. Which brings us back to the goblin.

In my mind a dead goblin is unwieldy, it's like a sack of potatoes basically. It's all oddly shaped and floppy, hard to get grip on,and it doesn't transfer the force along your arm evenly. It's just a horrible shield. In my view the test "Does it make sense in the context of the universe": Failed.

(EDIT: Note. A goblin does more readily serve as an improvised weapon, since all a weapon needs to be is heavy and something you can keep swinging in the right direction).

In my mind improvised weapons/tools are kind of meant to be something roughly analogous to the thing they're being improvised to replace. A stick is a pretty good improvised club or quarterstaff, a chicken is not. Some hairpins or thin but rock-hard monster bones are a good improvised set of thieves tools, some dry spaghetti is not. A pot lid or scrap of metal is a good improvised shield, a goblin corpse is not. In my view the test "Does it make sense in the spirit of the rules:": Failed.



For most of my games, I want to run with a heroic tone. I put this up front in the game description and have a talk with the players about what they think that means. I specifically ask them not to bring certain character archetypes to the table anti-heroes, anarchists, loners and the like. In my mind to maintain this tone "Enemy corpses as ready resource" tends to run counter to it in all but extreme situations. For most cases the test "Is this in keeping with the tone of the game: Failed" - at least for my games. Obviously this really applies strictly to my table while the other two are more general.


Given this it seems reasonable to me to say "No. I'm not going to reward that idea". I'm not punishing the character and they're in the exact same position they were before they proposed the idea. They've lost nothing and can go ahead and think of something else. Maybe it'll be an standard action maybe it'll be an out of the box idea. If it's creative and it fits with the game as I've outlined here, I'll reward it.

I'm happy to reward creative ideas. Such things have spawned entirely new plot threads at my table. I don't feel like failing to reward every little thing that springs to a players mind, even If I think it's plainly dumb is punishing them.

[Ralanr]

If the table likes the idea and they aren't going to show signs of abuse, then rule of cool should take over.

When something that's cool is overused, then it's no longer cool anymore. Rule of cool applies only for cool things.

Be cool responsibly.

[Fralex]

Goliaths are super-huge, aren't they? Like, about as big as a character could be while still considered Medium-sized? A Small creature probably doesn't cover much of them. I'd say +1 AC.

Or, make it a one-time AC boost. Like, if they're about to be hit, they can add 2 to their AC, but render the goblin even-less-of-a-shield in the process.

[pibby]

Is a shield not but a mass which one takes cover behind? Cover gives +2 and so do shields so as long as the player uses the corpse to equip his shield as an action like a normal shield I don't see why not.

Hell, Thorin Oakenshield would have died to the Orc if his "DM" didn't let him use a log as a shield.

I used to be a very rules savvy, straight-shot story based DM where everything in the game had to go as I pictured else I felt lost. I had since thrown those notions away because I learned that being a DM in a tabletop rpg is not about running battles and moving the story along akin to a crpg like Baldur's Gate. Rather, it's about constructing a collaborative story between the DM and his players, not letting things like unstated rules get in the way if it creates unwanted tension between the two parties, and letting dice resolve issues when the two parties are at a "disagreement" within the story.

[Hawkstar]

Corpse shields would certainly make an interesting choice, being that they don't take time to strap onNor do most shields (If someone tells me I have to have my Roman Legionairre, Viking Warrior, Greek Hoplite, or Spanish Swashbuckler strap their shield to their arm, I'm going to whack them with a history book. The scutum, aspis, viking shield, buckler, and almost any shield other than Heater and Kite shields are held with a single metal bar behind a reinforced boss, so you can punch people with them and maneuver them more readily. And not break your arm from solid blows).
weapons may have a chance of getting stuck in them,No more so than a wooden shield

Also, they probably don't last very long.This is true, and a good reason to allow it as a one-off thing without fear of "Sir Corpsalot"

[Finieous]

+1 AC, +2 vs. goblins