All shields should have cover

[Shademan]

example of a large shield


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


now this is a small shield. pic's are just for making examples.

[Ravens_cry]

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]

Following that logic armor should give even more cover, since it covers a larger % of the body.

[Shademan]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Shademan]

those pea shooters are enchanted!

[Darkfire]

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]

thats a iffy one...
I would say that if it ignores AC(as in...the actual armour) it ignores the shield

[taltamir]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

Hey, Pea shooters kill zombies.

But of course, they had not our shields.

[Skaven]

We fight in the shade.

[Shademan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Are you thinking of concealment? Shields already operate like 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.

[electricbee]

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]

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]

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]

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?