A discussion On Shields

[Foxworthy]

So a discussion on the rules for shields has come up in another thread and to not dilute that thread anymore I wnated to adress some of the issues.

In response to the discussion on shields, the change I suggested (i.e., that the bonus apply even in flatfooted/feinted situations) does not require facing to be included. Currently a shield still works against all 8 attackers on the person using a shield, no facing rules required, so simply changing the bonus to apply as a Defense bonus to Parry and ranged Dodge rather than a bonus which goes away in flatfooted/feinted situations does not create any difficulties. Plus it promotes shield use, which is a good thing.

The shield currently on applies to all 8 faces when the weilder is able to react to the situation. ie not flat footed. In normal combat a person is aware of the things around him and can react to threats from all squares.

Adding Shield bonus to defense when flat footed means that the person can react to a situation where he isn't suposed to be able to react. Also if A character snuck up behind a person with a shield why should that person get a shield bonus? Realisticly that doesn't seem right. The guy he has suprised isn't magically aware enough to spin around and deflect the blow so why does he get that bonus?

The way it is now is so that when the person can actively defend himself gets to use his shield as an active defense.

Also the system already has rules for using the shield when flat footed, the feat Reflexive Parry

Now to address this post

Shields as cover also means that if a stealthy character gets the drop on a person with a shield he still has to get around the shield no matter what. Unlike the current system where if you don't know your about to be attacked you can't use your shield to defend yourself.

Thus my suggestion to have them provide concealment rather than cover, as I corrected myself above. You're kinda pushing forward a point that I've already aquiesced to. (lol)

Shields as concealment would be very easy. They'd provide some concealment factor, which, when flat-footed could operate one of two ways: (A) stay the same or (B) be halved.

A large shield providing X% cover normally just makes sense to me because, as you say, the shield is normally used to move to actively block such that attackers have to come around it.

Anyway, enough on that here. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it more, we can start another thread...

Well DnD 3.5 has rules for concealment from shields, but it only applies to the tower shield. The rules above seem to make things more complicated than they really need to be.

You still need to know facing in your example cause concealment also only relative to the position of the attacker. A shield in front of a person being attacked from behind provides no concealment unless the person automaticaly faces all directions at once. Right now that magical state of facing every direction in combat is awarded only to people who are active combatants and are moving about during the fight.

Shields already provide cover, hence thier bonus to parry. The cavaet is that they only provide that bonus when the wielder of the shield knows where to put the shield as to gain benefit from it.

It's simple and it serves the purpose it was intended.

If you like to have combat facing and shields that provide a benefit all the time then use http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm rules. But to have the shield magically protect someone ina reas where it wouldn't be just doesn't seem right.

 

[Sutek]

The shield currently on applies to all 8 faces when the weilder is able to react to the situation. ie not flat footed. In normal combat a person is aware of the things around him and can react to threats from all squares.

Adding Shield bonus to defense when flat footed means that the person can react to a situation where he isn't suposed to be able to react. Also if A character snuck up behind a person with a shield why should that person get a shield bonus? Realisticly that doesn't seem right. The guy he has suprised isn't magically aware enough to spin around and deflect the blow so why does he get that bonus?

I think you're meta-ruling here. "Sneaking up" is handled with Sneak Attack, and working that around/through armor is handled with Finesse. The inclusion of Shield bonuses even when flat-footed would merely reduce DV but provide a modicum of DV increase that someone still needs to attack around. In that regard, it's a perfectly decent idea and fairly realistic.

I'll point out here too that the same sort of rule ought to apply to helmets which curently only provide a DR bonus which, by the RAW, would mysteriously vanish should the helm wearer be caught flat-footed. It shouldn't, should it? A helmet can't really be "attacked from behind."

Plus, I tend to think of shield use in general as being very auto-reactive, particularly given a character's ability to use a shield bonus on 8 attackers surrounding him. If that's possible, then why is it impossible that a shiled always confers some amount of protection even when caught flat-footed? We are only talking about DV 10 versus DV 14 here. It's not that much of a difference and still makes it far less than what it could be with Dodge/Parry incorporated.

Also the system already has rules for using the shield when flat footed, the feat Reflexive Parry.

That feat allows you to Parry when caught flat-footed. That means adding the Parry bonus to the mix. If Shields confer a Deflection bonus to DV rather than a Parry bonus (to coin a D&D term) or something similar then one could use a shield bonus whether Parrying or not.

Shields as cover also means that if a stealthy character gets the drop on a person with a shield he still has to get around the shield no matter what. Unlike the current system where if you don't know your about to be attacked you can't use your shield to defend yourself.

Thus my suggestion to have them provide concealment rather than cover, as I corrected myself above. You're kinda pushing forward a point that I've already aquiesced to. (lol)

Shields as concealment would be very easy. They'd provide some concealment factor, which, when flat-footed could operate one of two ways: (A) stay the same or (B) be halved.

A large shield providing X% cover normally just makes sense to me because, as you say, the shield is normally used to move to actively block such that attackers have to come around it.

You still need to know facing in your example cause concealment also only relative to the position of the attacker. A shield in front of a person being attacked from behind provides no concealment unless the person automaticaly faces all directions at once. Right now that magical state of facing every direction in combat is awarded only to people who are active combatants and are moving about during the fight.

No, you don't have to worry about facing to affect concealment in a combat. Invisible creatures are a good example of this. They get a miss change of 50% because you don't strike them, but istead swing into the space they occupy, trying to hit them.

The concealments confered by shields might be in the realm of 5x the current AP bonus, making for some rather low concealment ratings. A targe woul dgrant a 15% concealment bonus that would be in effect regardless of whether flat-footed or not. If that seems generous, perhaps it could be halved when flat-footed. It's simply an alternative to maintaining shield bonus to DV; not a better otion, but merely an option.

Shields already provide cover, hence thier bonus to parry. The cavaet is that they only provide that bonus when the wielder of the shield knows where to put the shield as to gain benefit from it.

Shields dont'provide cover. Cover grants a +4 to DV, and shields have varried DV adjustments depending on size, added to Parry or Dodge.

 

[Foxworthy]

I think you're meta-ruling here. "Sneaking up" is handled with Sneak Attack, and working that around/through armor is handled with Finesse. The inclusion of Shield bonuses even when flat-footed would merely reduce DV but provide a modicum of DV increase that someone still needs to attack around. In that regard, it's a perfectly decent idea and fairly realistic.

I'll point out here too that the same sort of rule ought to apply to helmets which curently only provide a DR bonus which, by the RAW, would mysteriously vanish should the helm wearer be caught flat-footed. It shouldn't, should it? A helmet can't really be "attacked from behind."

Well Helmets tend to protect the back of the head. Bigger ones tend to protect the sides and front as well. Sneaking up is handled by Move Silently and Hide, sneak attack is applied when someone is flat footed which is unable to defend themselves. Youw ant unable to defend themselves to mean able to use a shield to protect from all direction despite being able to protect themselves.

Plus, I tend to think of shield use in general as being very auto-reactive, particularly given a character's ability to use a shield bonus on 8 attackers surrounding him. If that's possible, then why is it impossible that a shiled always confers some amount of protection even when caught flat-footed? We are only talking about DV 10 versus DV 14 here. It's not that much of a difference and still makes it far less than what it could be with Dodge/Parry incorporated.

The diffrence is that combatants when aware ie not flat footed are able to move around thier square and defend themselves. WHen theya re flat footed they don't know whats going to happen and as such can't move around to defend against everyone. The reason for the hyper awarness in combat is to make thing easier. Hyper awarness before combat seems odd.

Also the system already has rules for using the shield when flat footed, the feat Reflexive Parry.

That feat allows you to Parry when caught flat-footed. That means adding the Parry bonus to the mix. If Shields confer a Deflection bonus to DV rather than a Parry bonus (to coin a D&D term) or something similar then one could use a shield bonus whether Parrying or not.

Well it's not DnD's deflection bonus, but if the DnD idea was used then shields would add to DR and not anything else. The point I'm making is that in Conan shields are used to parry blows. In order to parry you need to know an attack is coming. To be able to parry despite not knowing you're being attacked is odd.

Thus my suggestion to have them provide concealment rather than cover, as I corrected myself above. You're kinda pushing forward a point that I've already aquiesced to. (lol)

Shields as concealment would be very easy. They'd provide some concealment factor, which, when flat-footed could operate one of two ways: (A) stay the same or (B) be halved.

A large shield providing X% cover normally just makes sense to me because, as you say, the shield is normally used to move to actively block such that attackers have to come around it.

You still need to know facing in your example cause concealment also only relative to the position of the attacker. A shield in front of a person being attacked from behind provides no concealment unless the person automaticaly faces all directions at once. Right now that magical state of facing every direction in combat is awarded only to people who are active combatants and are moving about during the fight.

No, you don't have to worry about facing to affect concealment in a combat. Invisible creatures are a good example of this. They get a miss change of 50% because you don't strike them, but istead swing into the space they occupy, trying to hit them.

The concealments confered by shields might be in the realm of 5x the current AP bonus, making for some rather low concealment ratings. A targe woul dgrant a 15% concealment bonus that would be in effect regardless of whether flat-footed or not. If that seems generous, perhaps it could be halved when flat-footed. It's simply an alternative to maintaining shield bonus to DV; not a better otion, but merely an option.

Concealment work like cover in that you draw a line from the attacker square to the defenders square and if concealment intervines then they have concealment. Invisbilty and Shadowy Illumination make the whole pwerson or the whole square concealed meaning that whatever direction the person is facing he's concealed.

Though I was wrong about a tower shield it provides total cover which prevents people from attacking the user, which is a lot better then total concealment.

It does bring up the fact that a shield isn't concealment it would be cover if used liek that since it prevents things from going through it. Cover just prevents you from seeing something.

Shields already provide cover, hence thier bonus to parry. The cavaet is that they only provide that bonus when the wielder of the shield knows where to put the shield as to gain benefit from it.

Shields dont'provide cover. Cover grants a +4 to DV, and shields have varried DV adjustments depending on size, added to Parry or Dodge.

Cover has a varied DV modifier. Check Varying degrees of cover in the rulebook. Shields provide cover in the theory that is you move it in the way of an attack you get a bonus to your defense. In effect it's better then other cover as since you hold it you can move it around to defend yourself when you know you're being attacked. Of course unlike cover you don't get a bonus when you don't know your being attacked, while cover can provide that bonus if the attacker is on the other side.

 

[Oly]

Plus, I tend to think of shield use in general as being very auto-reactive, particularly given a character's ability to use a shield bonus on 8 attackers surrounding him. If that's possible, then why is it impossible that a shiled always confers some amount of protection even when caught flat-footed?

A character can use a shield against the 8 attackers surrounding him but he can also parry all of them as well. Just as that parrying doesn't imply that you should be able to parry flat-footed on a auto-reactive basis it's the same logic for the shield.

If anything does need modifying then it's probably that the reflexive parry feat should also allow you to use your shield. That's a nice and neat rule enhancement.

 

[Trodax]

If anything does need modifying then it's probably that the reflexive parry feat should also allow you to use your shield. That's a nice and neat rule enhancement.

Doesn't it already do that? You get to use your Parry defense when flat-footed (which includes the shield bonus).

 

[Foxworthy]

If anything does need modifying then it's probably that the reflexive parry feat should also allow you to use your shield. That's a nice and neat rule enhancement.

Doesn't it already do that? You get to use your Parry defense when flat-footed (which includes the shield bonus).

Yes it does. My only problem with the feat is the BAB requirment to get it. I think it should be lower since Uncanny Dodge can be gotten at fourth level. It's not a huge deal to me though.

 

[Sutek]

Now, see, there I agee with you, Fox.

I think more attention needs to be paid to BAB requirements for feats relative to class feature freebies.

That's bold so any development folks will be more apt to see it. :wink:

I constantly get players saying "Well, why would I want to wait for that feat with those requirements when I can just get this now?" or something similar. They get frustrated by the high requirements for seemingly moderate feats that would compliment them better at thier lower level than it will at a higher level. Sometimes, like in the case of Uncanny Dodge + Reflexive Parry things should "match up better" along the character level progression route, and they don't.

 

[slaughterj]

If anything does need modifying then it's probably that the reflexive parry feat should also allow you to use your shield. That's a nice and neat rule enhancement.

Doesn't it already do that? You get to use your Parry defense when flat-footed (which includes the shield bonus).

Yes it does. My only problem with the feat is the BAB requirment to get it. I think it should be lower since Uncanny Dodge can be gotten at fourth level. It's not a huge deal to me though.

Yeah, the +8 Parry bonus is a big problem for Reflexive Parry. It means that Soldiers can't get it until 12th level (first feat available after +8 Parry bonus) and Borderers and Nomads can't get it until 18th level! Compared with Barbarians and Pirates who get the better feat Uncanny Dodge at the much lower 4th level without the cost of a feat, some balancing is clearly required here. Personally I'm not much of a fan of prerequisite requirements (they add undue complexity to the game, and it is hard to spontaneously make higher level characters without plotting out feat chains), though I understand their purpose.

 

[slaughterj]

The shield currently on applies to all 8 faces when the weilder is able to react to the situation. ie not flat footed. In normal combat a person is aware of the things around him and can react to threats from all squares.

Adding Shield bonus to defense when flat footed means that the person can react to a situation where he isn't suposed to be able to react. Also if A character snuck up behind a person with a shield why should that person get a shield bonus? Realisticly that doesn't seem right. The guy he has suprised isn't magically aware enough to spin around and deflect the blow so why does he get that bonus?

I understand your concern, but think about the following:
1. The person with the shield who is snuck up on may have the shield in any sort of position at any given time, e.g., lowered and angled so that it actually does provide some back cover, if they are just standing around, so it could still be in the way.
2. Even if you sneak up on someone (i.e., catch them flatfooted relative to you) while that person is in combat with others, and that person is fighting defensively, the bonus from fighting defensively will still apply against you, the hidden sneaky unknown attacker. How is a shield different?
3. If you are face-to-face with some potential foes, and raise your shield in a guarded fashion just in case prior to combat ensuing, just because someone goes before you at the start of combat when it does finally start, shouldn't mean that you shouldn't get the benefit of the shield you had brought to bear which is physically in the way, though perhaps you lack the reactions to add in the rest of your parry bonus.

 

[Netherek]

I agree with Reflexive Parry, the requirements are insane. Especially when factor in that WotC consider Uncanny and Improved Uncanny the equivelant of a feat when combined.

A good change would be to Base Parry +4, that way a soldier has it by 6th and Borderers, Nomads, Noble, and Thieves get it at 8th level.

I'd like to see some shield feats, ones that improve there bonus and what not.

 

[slaughterj]

I would like to see Soldier (around 6th level), Borderer (around 8th level), Nomad (around 8th level), and Thief (around 8th level) get Reflexive Parry or Uncanny Dodge. The effect is so important, if it becomes a must have lower level feat chain to get, most characters will end up looking alike.

 

[Sutek]

We arent'talking about that here, slaughterj. We're talkingabout shields.

Please try to stay on topic.

8)

 

[slaughterj]

We arent'talking about that here, slaughterj. We're talkingabout shields.

Please try to stay on topic.

8)

And if you'll notice, the thread-starter himself engaged in this tangent, so enjoy it!

 

[Foxworthy]

1. The person with the shield who is snuck up on may have the shield in any sort of position at any given time, e.g., lowered and angled so that it actually does provide some back cover, if they are just standing around, so it could still be in the way.
2. Even if you sneak up on someone (i.e., catch them flatfooted relative to you) while that person is in combat with others, and that person is fighting defensively, the bonus from fighting defensively will still apply against you, the hidden sneaky unknown attacker. How is a shield different?
3. If you are face-to-face with some potential foes, and raise your shield in a guarded fashion just in case prior to combat ensuing, just because someone goes before you at the start of combat when it does finally start, shouldn't mean that you shouldn't get the benefit of the shield you had brought to bear which is physically in the way, though perhaps you lack the reactions to add in the rest of your parry bonus.

1. The rules for shields have rules for when shields are used on the back. I understand your point but it makes less sense for the system to have the shield always be in use even when the person can't actively defend themselves. The SRD rules on combat facing would make that option work well but it's a sacrifice of added complexity.
2. Well I hate that rule change from the DnD SRD. The change was only to nerf some of the advantages of feint. I'm not even sure that the developers want it to apply to a flat footed opponent. Of course it's rare to see a flat footed person fighting defensively.
3. In this system 3 never happens. Once the person starts actively defending themselves they aren't flat footed. Basically it's the equivalant to an action in the suprise round used to fight defensively. In the d20 system you're either actively defending yourself or not. It makes things simple and doesn't seem unreal.

 

[Oly]

2. Even if you sneak up on someone (i.e., catch them flatfooted relative to you) while that person is in combat with others, and that person is fighting defensively, the bonus from fighting defensively will still apply against you, the hidden sneaky unknown attacker. How is a shield different?

By the rules you're either flat footed or you're not, you're not flat footed relative to some opponents and not others. Once you've acted in combat your guard is up and your ready to defend yourself. The target can fight defensively and use his shield.

 

[Sutek]

Flat footed in surprise round, and surprising attackers roll different initiatives, some higer, some lower.

You can then be flat-footed to some, but not all; the ones with higer INIT counts than you during the first round.

8)

 

[Foxworthy]

Flat footed in surprise round, and surprising attackers roll different initiatives, some higer, some lower.

You can then be flat-footed to some, but not all; the ones with higer INIT counts than you during the first round.

8)

Well what he meant was that you can only be flat footed or not relative to an attacker. Thier's no almost flat footed or partially aware

 

[Trodax]

Having listened to the arguments, I'm with Foxworthy on this; I think the rules for how shields work should be kept as they are.

Having shields grant concealment instead of a bonus to defense means extra dice rolling which makes it a bad, bad idea.

The problem I have with a shield granting its bonus when you are flat-footed is that I think this makes it easy to argue that you should get the shield bonus also when you're using your Dodge defense. If the shield protects you by being a physical barrier when you are unaware, why wouldn't you also benefit from this barrier when you are aware and dodging? And I definitely don't want shield bonuses to add to Dodge.

I do agree that the prerequisites for Reflexive Parry are a bit high, they could be lowered a notch (although they should still remain somewhat high, being able to get the feat around levels 6-8 sounds good).

 

[Oly]

Flat footed in surprise round, and surprising attackers roll different initiatives, some higer, some lower.

You can then be flat-footed to some, but not all; the ones with higer INIT counts than you during the first round.

Well what he meant was that you can only be flat footed or not relative to an attacker. Thier's no almost flat footed or partially aware

What I meant was that at any time during combat you are either flat footed or you're not. Once your first action comes around you're no longer flat footed to anyone again in the same fight.

Being flat footed is not a state relative to different attackers. Some opponents may not get the chance to catch you flat footed if they don't act until you have but that's not the same as saying that's it's relative.

Being in cover is a relative concept, at any one point in time you can be in cover relative to some opponents but not others.

I hope I've made it a bit clearer this time. It all means that you cannot be fighting defensively and be caught flat footed at the same time (well according to the rules anyway). If you've had an action to declare that defence then you're no longer flat footed.

 

[slaughterj]

2. Even if you sneak up on someone (i.e., catch them flatfooted relative to you) while that person is in combat with others, and that person is fighting defensively, the bonus from fighting defensively will still apply against you, the hidden sneaky unknown attacker. How is a shield different?

By the rules you're either flat footed or you're not, you're not flat footed relative to some opponents and not others. Once you've acted in combat your guard is up and your ready to defend yourself. The target can fight defensively and use his shield.

Two points:
1. Just because you have your shield raised does not mean combat has started and initiative has been rolled. You may raise your shield when you see horsemen riding up, as you are worried they may be bandits. But you don't always attack automatically, you may first engage in some discussion, and during that time you still might have your shield raised. But then all of sudden a cowardly horseman may release a crossbow bolt at you by surprise. Under the rules, do you get to use your shield? Are you not flatfooted?

2. Flatfooted appears to be a very limited category, but there are equivalent situations which may arise during combat that put you in the same effective situation (no dodge/parry defense), e.g., if you are blinded, feinted, attacked by an invisible opponent, etc. In those situations, you are still getting your shield bonus, so why not flatfooted, which is the same situation mechanically?