Increasing the value of shields

[Scott Anderson]

A class feature of Fighting Men and Clerics is that they are allowed to carry shields. But that only means one additional point of armor class in exchange for the relatively high cost in encumbrance and losing the use of a hand.

So how do we make shields better? Here are some ideas.

Shields can be splintered of course. How did we ever play without this rule? This is the rule that makes shields worth something.

You can try shield wall - two adjacent figures with shields each grant the orher an additional AC.

You can make each class of armor one point worse and make a shield worth 2 points.

You can say shields grant 4 points of AC versus normal-type missiles.

Do any of these make sense to you?

[talysman]

I've been considering making shields AC 3 vs. normal missiles, from only one direction at a time.

Also, for my "Shields Shall Be Splintered" rule, the shield is only destroyed if the weapon is metal (vs. wooden shield.) Otherwise, it's just knocked out of the defender's hand.

[sixdemonbag]

I don't really like that shields conveniently splinter when I'm almost dead. Feels too deus ex machina for my tastes.

"Hey guys! Check this out! My shield is about to splinter!" It's almost like I'm choosing when my equipment fails, which doesn't sit right with me. However, I agree shields need some kind of boost. Magic shields being the only +3 to AC in the 3llbs is a nice touch.

Shields soaking a point of damage would also be essentially the same as a +2 to AC. Food for thought.

[starcraft]

I have long used a shield is +2 vs missile weapons rule.

Perhaps having the shield provide a damage soak vs an ac bonus would be better. Afterall, hitting a guy in plate holding a kite shield with a sword would be simple. Hurting him would be another matter.

[thecoldironkid]

Each round, a shield can be used to deflect hits a number of times based on fighting capability. (FM 1-3, C 1-4: once per round; FM 4-6, C 5-8: twice per round; and so on...)

Each time a shield is used thus, X/6 chance it is shattered. X = amount of damage prevented. Arrows and daggers (and maybe spears?) will never shatter a shield. I guess this only works if you always roll attack and damage together...

[Scott Anderson]

If a spear stuck right into a shield, they would both be useless!

[magremore]

Jul 5, 2017 10:39:54 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

You can try shield wall - two adjacent figures with shields each grant the orher an additional AC.

I particularly like this one because it doesn’t really need to be added as a rule. It’s a benefit that can be adjudicated as part of the game narrative by an active/engaged/creative referee. 

Shields don’t really need their mechanical benefit changed (lord knows I tried, lol) or other mechanical benefits officially added. Walls crumble, figures fall, debris flies in all directions—the shield will be a benefit at some point, the player and ref just need to be alive to the possibilities. 

Same thing with helmets. Who needs a specific mechanical benefit when the PCs are wandering slime/ooze infested corridors with creepy crawlies above and pitfalls below? 

it all should come out in the wash narrative.

[Malcadon]

Firstly, whatever normal to-hit penalty for cover is, a shield should provide that as an AC bonus. That is, if an enemy get a -2 to-hit if you are ducking behind a corner, than you should get a -2 to your (descending) Armor Class.

Secondly, what a character is attacked, player rolls a save vs Breath Weapons to have shield absorb the strike, otherwise the shield shatters. A magic shield's bonuses would also add to one's Breath Weapon saves, in general. There should be a threshold of damage where a shield shatters outright. The threshold should be based on materials used to make the shield. A shield's material could range from simple cow hide on sticks (Nguni) to the more standard wooden planks reinforced with leather and metal, to the more exotic vibranium-steel and adamantium alloys. A magical shield would effectively work like a monster that can only be hurt by an equal or higher magic weapon, in this case, a +1 shield can only be shattered by a +1 sword or better.

If the second rule is put in place, it could easily overtake body armor in importance. Hell, it could make the beefcake/cheesecake class options more viable (and that is ALWAYS a huge plus for me b ).

[Scott Anderson]

In Treasure Hunters, we use a 2d6 to hit mechanic with ascending AC starting with 5 for unarmored. The shield is +2. Armor is +1/+2/+3. I don't have the statistical analysis, but it seems about right- shields are as valuable as chain armor; but all armors are more valuable so it messes things up.

[sixdemonbag]

Jul 6, 2017 21:05:52 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

In Treasure Hunters, we use a 2d6 to hit mechanic with ascending AC starting with 5 for unarmored. The shield is +2. Armor is +1/+2/+3. I don't have the statistical analysis, but it seems about right- shields are as valuable as chain armor; but all armors are more valuable so it messes things up.

Using 2d6 if you wanted to match traditional AC you would need to use ascending ACs starting at 7 and going to 10. The extremes would only be off 3.33% so it's pretty close to BTB.

Of course, you only get 4 unique ACs that way. I like your method a lot. The high end matches plate and shield, and the low end is MUCH more vulnerable (if that was your intent). Looks good to me.

[howandwhy99]

I do use shield facing, so rear attacks don't include the bonus to AC - but they could... I remember when players would wear their shields on their backs And that would help against rear attacks/backstabs. Also, shields might be used as cover against called shots, like for particular objects or body parts.

[hamurai]

I've allowed to use shields for a +3 bonus to Saving Throws against some sort of traps, like arrow traps or falling rocks, depending on the situation, but especially when the character was expecting the trap. Or instead of Save halves the character could negate with a successful Save.

[Starbeard]

Ruling that a shield provides the same bonus as cover is good.

Shields also have offensive utility, since they let you get closer to and apply pressure on the enemy without hurting yourself. It's tricky to model this in D&D, though. Maybe a general rule that, within reason, a shield cancels out an enemy's ability to attack first due to weapon length (of course, if both parties have a shield then it's a moot point). Or, perhaps using a shield negates your opponent's shield bonus.

[Scott Anderson]

This is tangentially related to the topic. If you have a good piercing melee weapon, can you use it to foul a shield? Giving up a spear or short sword by jamming it into a shield seems like it could foul the shield and grant a surprise bonus to the next attack. Not a lot of monsters use them, but normal-types like men and orcs do.

[premmy]

Jul 13, 2017 6:46:32 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

This is tangentially related to the topic. If you have a good piercing melee weapon, can you use it to foul a shield? Giving up a spear or short sword by jamming it into a shield seems like it could foul the shield and grant a surprise bonus to the next attack. Not a lot of monsters use them, but normal-types like men and orcs do.

I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't really let it happen as a DM for the following reasons:

- The Roman pilum was designed to do pretty much this. However, the pilum was not a spear or other polearm, but a throwing weapon specifically built for the purpose. Quick googling suggests that it was heavier than an ordinary spear, which probably would have made it slow and unwieldy in close combat.

- It follows from this that an actual spear, designed for spear combat, would be too light to reliably pierce through a shield, with not enough mass behind the stab. Not to mention that a stabbing motion is probably less effective at giving the thing kinetic energy than a throw. A shortsword would be even worse, again due to not enough mass and an inefficient stabbing motion.

- I feel like the proposed maneuver assumes that shields are 80s Hollywood fantasy movie-style plyboard contraptions, or maybe African cowhide shields, rather than something like an actual medieval round shield made of non-splitting wood with a hide covering, a metal rim and a shield boss. Which would be pretty hard to pierce.

- Perhaps even more importantly, a shield in combat is a moving thing, not a stationary object securely braced against something. Something like a Viking round shield isn't strapped to the wielder's arm, it's simply being held by a grip behind the boss. Hit it with enough energy to pierce the shield, and the whole shield will simply turn left or right, with the grip in the user's hand acting as a sort of hinge or pivot point. And even if it's a shield that is strapped to the arm, like a kite shield, the wielder is still a moving human: he will step back, step aside, move his arm, or fall on his ass well before you could exert enough pressure to push the weapon through the shield. Look at this video around 4:10 to 4:30 - this is what would happen, only with a spear.

[Scott Anderson]

Hm! Thanks!

[oldkat]

Jul 13, 2017 6:46:32 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

This is tangentially related to the topic. If you have a good piercing melee weapon, can you use it to foul a shield? Giving up a spear or short sword by jamming it into a shield seems like it could foul the shield and grant a surprise bonus to the next attack. Not a lot of monsters use them, but normal-types like men and orcs do.

Returning to this thread several small points occurred to me.

Melee-combat, as an abstract mechanic of the game, subsumes multiple actions occurring within a designated time. First and foremost, it assumes that the combatants are in motion, dodging and ducking and parrying to avoid being struck. In this light, the advantage of a shield should always be (and never be more than) directed at the opponent striking you. If you have 4 kobolds at your throat, sorry, the shield will only add to your advantage vs 1 of them *(more on this below); unless your characters are all super heroes from DC comics. Why? Because the point of the shield is to place it between you and the immediate attacker; and since you cannot defend against more than 1 attack at a time with a shield, your body protection will have to do the job against all else.

As to the above quote. Missile weapons aside, who would want to? If the shield is fouled, so is the weapon, thereby leaving the attacker weaponless for how many rounds/turns? Risky business that is.

* But since the idea is "increasing the value of shields" why not allow the Fighting Man (and only the FM) the ability to include the shield and its addition to AC vs more opponents as he/or she, rises in levels? Say, twice at L4, thrice at level 7, etc. Seems simple and ODDish enough to me.

[Scott Anderson]

Yes, it must be simple. But even so, I think the shield needs a really good boost. Things are germinating nicely on my end...

[hamurai]

Jul 13, 2017 11:36:24 GMT -6 oldkat said:

Melee-combat, as an abstract mechanic of the game, subsumes multiple actions occurring within a designated time. First and foremost, it assumes that the combatants are in motion, dodging and ducking and parrying to avoid being struck. In this light, the advantage of a shield should always be (and never be more than) directed at the opponent striking you. If you have 4 kobolds at your throat, sorry, the shield will only add to your advantage vs 1 of them *(more on this below); unless your characters are all super heroes from DC comics. Why? Because the point of the shield is to place it between you and the immediate attacker; and since you cannot defend against more than 1 attack at a time with a shield, your body protection will have to do the job against all else.

* But since the idea is "increasing the value of shields" why not allow the Fighting Man (and only the FM) the ability to include the shield and its addition to AC vs more opponents as he/or she, rises in levels? Say, twice at L4, thrice at level 7, etc. Seems simple and ODDish enough to me.

And because combat uses an abstract 1-minute round I'd allow the shield AC bonus at least to defend against all attacks from one side (180° or even more) because these 4 kobolds probably don't attack all at the same exact time during this one minute. If they stand next to each other they'd risk hurting their allies in the chaos of combat. If two of these kobolds wanted to attack simultaneously, they'd have to stand in the front and in the rear of the enemy - and then only one would have to get around the shield.

So I'd rule that the shield's AC bonus counts against all attacks unless positioning of the attacker makes the shield useless - and that's the DM's call.

To increase its usefulness fighting-men might be allowed to focus their shield on one opponent, gaining +2 AC against this one, but no bonus against other opponents this turn?

I'm a little torn when it comes to increasing the AC bonus. Yes, shields are very valuable defense tools, but they are pretty heavy and exhausting when the battle takes longer than a few minutes. I doubt that an unskilled shield-user would benefit much (if at all) from it after the first minute (combat round). So the +1 AC could still be seen as a more general bonus - the shield is there, but the user doesn't often use it to actually actively block the attack because that's way too exhausting in longer fights. The shield is still useful when just held and moved in the general direction of attacks, though, as the enemy has to get around it, which isn't that hard when you know what you're doing (and they have a long weapon like a longsword or pole-arm) and your enemy has other attacks to also pay attention to.

Personally, I'd leave the +1 AC bonus and add some other benefits, like the circumstantial saving throw bonus I mentioned.

[waysoftheearth]

I agree that OD&D combat is abstract. This is particularly so for fantastic combat, and perhaps less so for normal combat (which is resolved at the level of "blows" and "swings").

But I don't agree that a shield is just a wall to obstruct one possible hit in any combat round; I read it more as a tactical obstacle in a melee. The mere presence of a shield restricts the possible avenues of attack, hence the frequency of viable attacks, and hence the overall likelihood of being struck in any period. From that perspective, I'm content that a shield can be effective versus multiple frontal attacks in a combat round, regardless of its period (see below*).

As was originally discussed in the fall of shields thread, shields reduced missile kills by almost half in CM's mass battles missile fire rules. They were about half as effective vs missiles in MtM; about half as effective again vs melee attacks in MtM; and about half as effective again vs THAC2 attacks via the Alternative Attack Matrices.

Despite all that, a shield's 1 pip of AC still improves a player's protection against normal (THAC2 17) attacks on the Alternative matrices by an average of 13.6%.

I.e., consider a defender against a THAC2 attack:
- Plate 25% likely to be hit
- Plate and shield 20% likely to be hit --> plate+shield is 1/5th (20%) less likely to be hit.

- Mail 35% likely to be hit
- Mail and shield 30% likely to be hit --> mail+shield is 1/7th (14.3%) less likely to be hit.

- Leather 45% likely to be hit
- Leather and shield 40% likely to be hit --> leather+shield is 1/9th (11.1%) less likely to be hit.

- Unarmored 55% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> shield is 1/11th (9.1%) less likely to be hit.

Average advantage of a shield vs THAC2 attacks = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%.

If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them (on average) 17.15% less likely to be hit by a THAC2 attack. That's 1 in 6 territory.


* p.s. (If you aren't already weary of it): the duration of an OD&D combat round.

[sixdemonbag]

Jul 14, 2017 2:41:01 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Despite all that, a shield's 1 pip of AC still improves a player's protection against normal (THAC2 17) attacks on the Alternative matrices by an average of 13.6%.

I.e., consider a defender against a THAC2 attack:
- Plate 25% likely to be hit
- Plate and shield 20% likely to be hit --> plate+shield is 1/5th (20%) less likely to be hit.

- Mail 35% likely to be hit
- Mail and shield 30% likely to be hit --> mail+shield is 1/7th (14.3%) less likely to be hit.

- Leather 45% likely to be hit
- Leather and shield 40% likely to be hit --> leather+shield is 1/9th (11.1%) less likely to be hit.

- Unarmored 55% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> shield is 1/11th (9.1%) less likely to be hit.

Average advantage of a shield vs THAC2 attacks = (9.1 + 11.1 + 14.3 + 20) / 4 = 13.6%.

If we consider just mail and plate armoured figures, carrying a shield makes them (on average) 17.15% less likely to be hit by a THAC2 attack. That's 1 in 6 territory.


* p.s. (If you aren't already weary of it): the duration of an OD&D combat round.

Or, another way to look at it copying waysoftheearth 's method:

consider a defender against a THAC2 attack:
- Plate 25% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> plate is 50% less likely to be hit.

- Mail 35% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> mail is 30% less likely to be hit.

- Leather 45% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> leather is 10% less likely to be hit.

- Unarmored 55% likely to be hit
- Shield only 50% likely to be hit --> unarmored is 9% more likely to be hit.

Average advantage of any armor vs shield only (THAC2 attacks) = (50 + 30 + 10) / 3 = 30%.

If we consider just mail and plate armored figures, versus only carrying a shield makes them (on average) 40% less likely to be hit by a THAC2 attack. That's 2 in 5 territory.

Metal armor being 40% more effective than carrying only a shield seems reasonable to me. But, I'm also not an expert on medieval armor, so I can't speak to it's historical accuracy.

[talysman]

Jul 13, 2017 11:36:24 GMT -6 oldkat said:

Jul 13, 2017 6:46:32 GMT -6 Scott Anderson said:

This is tangentially related to the topic. If you have a good piercing melee weapon, can you use it to foul a shield? Giving up a spear or short sword by jamming it into a shield seems like it could foul the shield and grant a surprise bonus to the next attack. Not a lot of monsters use them, but normal-types like men and orcs do.

Returning to this thread several small points occurred to me.

Melee-combat, as an abstract mechanic of the game, subsumes multiple actions occurring within a designated time. First and foremost, it assumes that the combatants are in motion, dodging and ducking and parrying to avoid being struck. In this light, the advantage of a shield should always be (and never be more than) directed at the opponent striking you. If you have 4 kobolds at your throat, sorry, the shield will only add to your advantage vs 1 of them *(more on this below); unless your characters are all super heroes from DC comics. Why? Because the point of the shield is to place it between you and the immediate attacker; and since you cannot defend against more than 1 attack at a time with a shield, your body protection will have to do the job against all else.

I'm going to have to side with hamurai on this. If you are using the OD&D standard of 1 minute combat rounds, the assumption is that you are turning and re-positioning yourself for the best advantage in terms of both attack and defense, so you are trying to keep those four kobolds in front of you, while the kobolds are trying to flank you. The point of the attack roll is to see which side succeeded. You should only lose your shield bonus if your description of your actions, combined with the attempted tactics of the kobolds, indicates you could not have used your shield against at least one of the kobolds.

If the announced goal of the kobolds is for three of them to keep you busy so that the fourth can get behind you, I think the most I would do is reroll surprise. If the kobolds win, then they achieve their goal, and one of the kobolds strikes from behind. If only two kobolds are keeping you busy so that the other two can both strike from behind, then you would get a bonus on your surprise roll.

As for the idea of fouling a shield with a weapon, I'd just use an ordinary attack roll, but the damage roll is not applied to hits. Instead, the shield user rolls a d6 as well, and if the attacker's damage roll is higher, the shield becomes useless.

So, in all cases, I try to maintain the abstract 1 minute round and assume that attackers and defenders are both trying their best. If I were using a much shorter round, say by substituting TFT: Melee as my combat system, only then would I worry about precise positions of combatants.

[Scott Anderson]

Sometimes my brain forgets very basic things. Of course shield facing is mostly irrelevant in a combat round of one minute. It's only when one combatant isn't flanked by two others does it matter which opponent you use the shield against.

[oldkat]

Something to consider when imagining all this is...

when our Fighting Man is facing down even 2 opponents, in whatever frame of time one wants to consider, he (the fighting man) can only present his protection to the opponent immediately attacking him. He (the fighting man) is assumed to perform this defense action as considered part of his AC. That's what adding the shield is all about. Thus, when he (the FM) is attacked by 1 opponent, he (the FM)is engaged defensively with that opponent. Meanwhile, opponent 2 has an open attack on him (the FM) and could, reasonably, pick the dudes back to target.

Naturally, this whole thing (the system in its entirety) is so abstract, and written so, that it allows, actually it forces, the game ref to make his or her own decisions based upon abstractions that are, at best, only examples.

You gotta do what you gotta do.