[3.5/PF] Inverting the shield and armor bonuses

[harpy]

Just kind of wandering down a house rule that would aim to mostly reskin existing rules...

One thing that has always bugged me with D&D is that the shield has had a very low impact on the defense of a combatant.

Now, it is true that D&D's combat has always been abstract in nature, with both AC and hit points not really reflecting any specific blow by blow action and so the ratings for the various defensive values have to be taken as an overall measure of protection.

Still, the siren song of more visceral simulationism continues to sing to me after three decades. I don't want to monkey around with the overall math too much of the system, but there ought to be ways to reframe some of the values to nudge the system in different directions.

One of these ways would be to do some inversion of the shield and armor bonuses in the game. Rather than shields providing only a small defensive value, instead they would provide the "frontloaded" defensive value, and armor would take up the slack.

The basic idea is that within the game world, the shield would be the first thing that comes to mind in terms of providing defensive value. Armor would be the secondary and backup measure.

The basic idea would be for shields:

Double the Shield Bonus and Armor Check Penalty for Shields

Halve (round down) the Armor Bonus and Armor Check Penalties for Armor.

You could also add a bit more granularity, and triple the Shield bonus and Armor check penalties for Heavy Shields.

I put together a pdf with various charts to compare the numbers which you can find here.

[Starbuck_II]

So double the base Shielde bonus, but 1/2 thr armor bonus?

That would make Sword/board more reliable. Wait, would padded armor provide +0 or +1 (it currently provides +1)?
Are you going to kick padded to the curb?

[wormwood]

Just play Warhammer 2nd Edition. It will fix this for you. Shields are extremely useful in Warhammer, as they provide blanket defense and allow you a free shot each round at blocking an incoming hit. Armor actually behaves as armor (it doesn't keep you from getting hit so much as absorb damage when you ARE hit).

[Spiryt]

Doubling shields bonus is common,and quite good idea.

I don't see the point of nerfing armors at all.
It's definitely not that they're too good as now.

[bosssmiley]

Link related: giving shields the respect that's due in D&D

[bbugg]

A lot of systems give DR for armour instead of AC. I like this thought. I.e. double shield value, and give armour DR, not AC.
That way, a shield stops you from getting hit while armour stops you from getting hurt IF you get hit.

[Spiryt]

The problem with DR instead of AC is that this makes armor weak, even crappy attacks deal constant damage, and they are anyway somehow nerfed, while any power attack for 50 of damage will going to be deadly, beacuse nothing is going to stop him, certainly not those few points of damage subtracted from it.

And it doesn't really makes too much sense too, armor was stopping you from getting hit, in sense that the fact that something made contact with you didn't really mattered.

Adding some slight DR (maybe just 1 for L 2 for M and 3 for H) to already existing AC would probably make more sense.

[Tiki Snakes]

Unearthed Arcana did have a very interesting 'Armour as DR' system in it, I recall. Worth looking at. Perhaps coupling that with a buff to sheilds could prove usefull?

[Last Laugh]

So for whatever reason (I might be simple) I just realized that you can unequip your shield and put it on your back to remove the Armor Check penalties?

[ericgrau]

One thing that has always bugged me with D&D is that the shield has had a very low impact on the defense of a combatant.

Optimize 1st, house rule 2nd. Shields cut physical damage taken almost in half compared to no shields, from levels 1 through 20. Pathfinder Alpha already made the mistake of giving out crazy AC bonuses such that nothing ever got hit except by non-AC attacks. A +4 is all it takes to go from the normal 75% miss to 95% miss. Fortunately PF got rid of that.

So for whatever reason (I might be simple) I just realized that you can unequip your shield and put it on your back to remove the Armor Check penalties?

Yes, if -1 ACP on a MW heavy shield is that bad. Or simply wield a MW light shield or buckler.

[Greenish]

Still, the siren song of more visceral simulationism continues to sing to me after three decades.

The basic idea is that within the game world, the shield would be the first thing that comes to mind in terms of providing defensive value. Armor would be the secondary and backup measure.

I don't know, wasn't armour supposed to be effective? As in, with full plate you could just pass using a shield.

So for whatever reason (I might be simple) I just realized that you can unequip your shield and put it on your back to remove the Armor Check penalties?

Wearing full plate reduces your speed. Carrying it in your arms doesn't. (With 14+ Str.) Such is D&D.

[Fhaolan]

Weird idea, just off the top of my head...

Sheilds, unlike armour, is a very active defense. How about getting a percentage of the character's BAB as the AC bonus for shields. For example: A 1st level fighter gets +1 AC if he uses a shield. A 10th level fighter gets +10 if he uses a large shield, +8 for a medium, +6 for a small (numbers are just pulled off of my head here for example purposes.)

As I said, weird idea. Haven't put more than a minute into working it out, because I'm in a meeting right now that I am technically supposed to be paying attention to.

[Roderick_BR]

Weird idea, just off the top of my head...

Sheilds, unlike armour, is a very active defense. How about getting a percentage of the character's BAB as the AC bonus for shields. For example: A 1st level fighter gets +1 AC if he uses a shield. A 10th level fighter gets +10 if he uses a large shield, +8 for a medium, +6 for a small (numbers are just pulled off of my head here for example purposes.)

As I said, weird idea. Haven't put more than a minute into working it out, because I'm in a meeting right now that I am technically supposed to be paying attention to.

Something like: "Increase the shield bonus in +1 for every 2 points of base attack bonus. You lose this shield bonus in any situation you'd lose you dex bonus (if any). When using a full defense action, you add instead +1 for every point of base attack bonus". Makes it obvious that using the shield is an active action, instead of passive. Need to work out that idea.
For my campaign, I'm using this variation:
*Characters use the Defense variant.
*Armor gives half the core AC as DR (rounded down). The maximum Dex of all armors increase in +2. There'll have a new column with the maximum defense bonus, similar to maximum dexterity bonus.
*Shields give AC+1 (buckler), AC+2(small),AC+3(large), or AC+4(tower), and counts against touch attacks (except incorporeal). All other rules are as normal.
*Shield bonus stacks with Defense. Armors let the character either use it's own AC, or his defense (limited by the maximum defense bonus), whichever is highter.

This means that high level unarmored characters have a better AC than low level ones. Armor provides defense, but gets in the way of the character's movements. An higher level character with the same type of armor than a low level one still get a slightly better AC. And shields are always useful.

[GreyMantle]

Personally, I think it makes sense for shields to give a flat out miss chance. (maybe 5% for bucklers, 5-10% for light shields, 15-20% for heavy, maybe 30-40% for tower shields)

As is, THF is just so much better than swordnboard, the latter is not really an option, primarily because, past like the mid to late single digits, attack increases so much faster than AC, AC is really more useful for limiting the amount of PA an attacker can use on you than actually decreasing the chance of hitting. And the +2+7 bonus you're getting from a shield is not worth the tradeoff of decreased damage.

A miss chance lets mundanes have equivalents of good defense spells like blur.