Fight On!

[Beoric]

Would there be an interest in shield house rules? Basically, by making shields an active defense you remove the problems that plate users benfit from shields more than the unarmored, a reverse relationship than what it's like in reality.

Shields and polearms are both barriers that you have to get past in order to attack your opponent. Both should have a much larger impact on defense than 1 or 0 points of AC. But I doubt you could properly model that impact in any edition of D&D without completely revamping AC math.

Another issue is helmets, which are probably the single most important piece of armor. This at least gets some treatment in 1e, but is absent in later editions (I'm not sure about earlier editions, but the 1e rule has a definite "1e" feel to it so I suspect not).

 

[Two orcs]

It's not so much going for realism as verisimilitude. Giving shields a flat chance to block means less armored combatants benefit more than highly armored combatants. The normal AC math means a highly armored character benefits more from adding a shield.

Regarding helmets I'd simply say not having a helmet is -1AC (or rather make all armor -1 and say helmets are +1). It's a free benefit so a player will always take it if they can. ACKS does an interesting thing with closed helmets giving a penalty to surprise but a bonus to the Death and Dismemberment roll, I've seen many fighters avoid a crippling injury thanks to their greathelms.

 

[squeen]

It's not so much going for realism as verisimilitude. Giving shields a flat chance to block means less armored combatants benefit more than highly armored combatants. The normal AC math means a highly armored character benefits more from adding a shield.

I am not understand the reasoning/math behind this.

 

[TerribleSorcery]

I feel that a lot of versimilitude conversations only make sense in the shallow end of the D&D game, and only if you consider human vs. human(oid) combat to be the significant element, instead of human vs. monster.

When my fighter has +1 shield and +3 plate, swinging his +2 flail against a blue dragon or a hill giant... what does it even mean to say that something is realistic or 'versimilitudinous'? What part of knight vs. dragon am I failing to account for? What do those 'pluses' even mean?

I think that zooming out a bit and recognizing that the game is meant to model humans fighting monsters, and this it does quite well, might be helpful.

 

[Two orcs]

I am not understand the reasoning/math behind this.

That would be part of the article, though it might be too dry for a paper called Fight On!

1HD monster has a 15% chance to hit a guy in full plate and 10% chance to hit a guy in full plate+shield.
1HD monster has a 55% chance to hit a guy in no armor and 50% chance to hit a guy with a shield.

Full plate guy reduces expected hits by 33%! Unarmored guy reduces expected hits by 9%. The shield is more than twice as effective for the full plate wearer. By instead having a shield throw (say shield blocks 1 in 6 attacks that would otherwise hit AC) the less armor you have the more hits the shield will prevent (since you roll for it more often) giving a greater benefit to a less armored character.

This also means shields are more effective against stronger monsters than against weaker monsters as the armor is relatively weaker against their high HD attack. So against a horde of weak monsters a full plate and two handed sword might do better but against a strong monster a shield will serve you better. My rule also includes shields being inherently weaker against larger monsters (who just smash through) so shields will be the choice vs. strong normal sized creatures like high level fighters, vampires etc. while two-handing will make more sense against ogres, giants, dragons etc.

In the end, what bothers me is both the ahistorical stacking of heavy armor and shield, but also the fact that stacking heavy armor, shield, Dexterity, rings of protection etc. becomes more effective the bigger your stack is, instead of spreading the protection out among the group. The ring of protection is WASTED on the unarmored mage but might cut the expected hits a fighter recieves by a quarter, a third or in half depending on the HD of your opponent.

 

[Two orcs]

I think that zooming out a bit and recognizing that the game is meant to model humans fighting monsters, and this it does quite well, might be helpful.

My players chiefly battle other humans or human-like enemies. But shields make even less sense against a monster, a doubt early man carried shields when fighting mammoths or lions up close. I think the game should align with reality to a point. Going to battle in armor should protect you better against claw, sword and arrow than going naked. The naked warrior runs faster than the armored warrior. A longbow will outrange a thrown dart. It should make sense where it can.

 

[Two orcs]

When my fighter has +1 shield and +3 plate, swinging his +2 flail against a blue dragon or a hill giant... what does it even mean to say that something is realistic or 'versimilitudinous'? What part of knight vs. dragon am I failing to account for? What do those 'pluses' even mean?

A very good question, and I do have an answer. If you describe what the pluses actually mean, you make the world more real. Imagine two swords.
Sword+1 A: The enchantment makes the blade supernaturally hard and sharp.
Sword +2 B: The enchantment guides the blade to gaps in the armor and major blood vessels.

Mechacinally identical, but by investing them with explanation the players will see them more as "real" objects and less as game abstractions. And if you end up in a situation where you need a powerful lever Sword+1 A is superior, we create reality and reality creates back.

 

[Two orcs]

The shield rule in full:
When an attack you could block with your shield hits your AC, roll 1d6. On 6+ you block the attack. Add 1 to the roll if you have Fighting style: Shield, and +1 per enchantment bonus. Subtract 1 from the roll per size category the opponent is larger than you. If you block an attack made with a natural 20, you still take damage and your shield breaks (enchanted shields may only be broken by enchanted weapons or strong monsters). Shields may not blocks special maneuvers like disarm, sunder, wrestle etc.

I've played with this rule for 2 years and it provides excellent drama without taking up much time, especially when a warrior is hanging in there with single digit hit points and a flurry of blows bypass his AC.

 

[Attronarch]

Would there be an interest in shield house rules? Basically, by making shields an active defense you remove the problems that plate users benfit from shields more than the unarmored, a reverse relationship than what it's like in reality.

Similar articles have been published in Fight On! before, so no harm in sending them...