A discussion On Shields

[Oly]

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?

By the rules I think you're flat footed. Personally I usually play it that if someone is ready and expecting combat then they're not flat footed. Thus flat-footed doesn't happen too often in my games.

In the above example I think I'd play it depending on how the players dealt with it. If they had swords and shields ready then they wouldn't be flat footed, though it would taint the discussion and look threatening. If they just talked then it would be as per the rules with surprise rounds and peopel being flat footed.

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?

I see where you're coming from on this.

I'd rule that if you can't dodge or parry then you can't use your shield either. I do see a shield as being something quite dynamic that requires intelligent thought and usage.

In part I'm influenced by how the Stormbringer game works where shields are an active object that you parry with and have a skill in. With training it's possible to become more effective with a shield and derive more protection from it.

That's more complexity than I want in my Conan game but I do take up the idea that it's an active defence.

 

[Sutek]

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?

Slaughter has a good point here.

A) Characters going into a dark alley might raise thier shields, ready for an ambush, only to have thier shields not count suddenly, because they fail Spot checks and get jumped.

B) Climbing a wall, you can't use your shield, so you strp it to you back. Halfway up, archers start shooting at you from an opposite wall. You can't Dodge, which is what the Shield adds to for ranged attacks currently, so you can't use your shield as protection...even though it's a big plank of wood and metal covering a third of you body from the rear. Makes no sense.

I understand the aversion to rolling more dice, but I thin concealment is the simplest solution as it takes shields completely out of the DV realm.

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?

Again, concealment (or doing what slaughterj suggests and allowing the shild bonus to DV to remain even when Dodge/Parry are denied) just makes sense. It's a big object and it's in the way. It's not a large bonus to DV, particularly when you drop to a base DV10 when flat footed. The most you could retain with a shield is +4DV.

I like the idea, but will incorporate my concealment idea instead. x5 to the current listted DV bonus works nicely, as far I'm concerned.

 

[Oly]

A) Characters going into a dark alley might raise thier shields, ready for an ambush, only to have thier shields not count suddenly, because they fail Spot checks and get jumped.

No set of rules can be simple and perfect. By the rules they could be caught flat footed. However I'd say that if they're ready for an ambush then they're ready for combat and won't be flat footed, that's a house rule though.

Allowing someone to swing a shield into action, as I've said shield usage to me is more than them being passively in the way, opens a can of worms with players then asking "well if he can move his shield why can't I step aside or parry?".

B) Climbing a wall, you can't use your shield, so you strp it to you back. Halfway up, archers start shooting at you from an opposite wall. You can't Dodge, which is what the Shield adds to for ranged attacks currently, so you can't use your shield as protection...even though it's a big plank of wood and metal covering a third of you body from the rear. Makes no sense.

When a shield is strapped to your back the rules give you +2DR vs. one opponent when flanked. In the above example I'd just houserule a similar piece of logic and treat the shield as a piece or armour and give that +2DR

Giving that DR in other situations where the shield is just used as passive cover might also give a neat enough solution so as to keep the game workable. In effect you're wearing or holding the shield as a piece of armour rather than actively using it.

I understand the aversion to rolling more dice, but I thin concealment is the simplest solution as it takes shields completely out of the DV realm.

As a rule shields will work fine in the current rule set, there's a small set of situatons where there's trouble, such as the examples you're giving.

To burden down every single attack against a shield carrying opponent with a new D% roll taking most attacks from 2 to 3 seperate dice rolls (and a roll of a new kind at that, D% being v.rare in D20) just doesn't seem like a simple or neat solution.

Why complicate maybe 95% of the attacks against a shield because of that small 5% problem? Given how rare the situation will be I'm happy for whatever solution there is to be less than perfect if those other 95% of attacks are kept smooth and simple.

I guess in the end here I begin to show my colours as a rules light gamer. I don't want a perfect simulation. I want something logical and smooth that lets the combat flow quickly.

 

[slaughterj]

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?

By the rules I think you're flat footed. Personally I usually play it that if someone is ready and expecting combat then they're not flat footed. Thus flat-footed doesn't happen too often in my games.

In the above example I think I'd play it depending on how the players dealt with it. If they had swords and shields ready then they wouldn't be flat footed, though it would taint the discussion and look threatening. If they just talked then it would be as per the rules with surprise rounds and peopel being flat footed.

I think we agree that the rules say you are flatfooted. And I agree that it is odd and in the past have leaned against those situations actually resulting in people being flatfooted, but now just I tend to run it as the rules state because (1) I prefer to stick with the rules rather than house rules and (2) of points made to me about flatfooted. One point made was that if you picture two "readied" fencers, from time to time, one will still get a jump on the other and score an easy hit, even if both are readied. Similarly, I can see everyone being "readied" when the alleged bandits appear, but one hidden bandit still unleashes a shot at a party member, surprising them. I understand where you are coming from, but dialing it back too much weakens sneak attack, though it also makes things like uncanny dodge and reflexive parry more important.

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?

I see where you're coming from on this.

I'd rule that if you can't dodge or parry then you can't use your shield either.
[/quote]

That's the way the rule works for any of those conditions, whether flatfooted, blinded, stunned, feinted, etc., unless you have reflexive parry or uncanny dodge.

After further thought on this subject, I think the best solution would be for the GM to decide if the shield would apply. Leave the rule as it is, i.e., that shield bonus does not apply in situations where you are unable to use your Parry / Dodge defense, but put in a caveat that the GM can allow a shield bonus to still apply, if in the GM's judgment, the shield is still in the way. Then we avoid the aforementioned issues of the shield applying in non-active situations such as a thief sneaking up and surprising a shield-carrying guard from behind. But then a GM *could* still give the shield bonus in situations such as a character standing in a narrow corridor and being attacked from in front by an invisible attacker. A little bit of good judgment can go a long way.

 

[slaughterj]

To burden down every single attack against a shield carrying opponent with a new D% roll taking most attacks from 2 to 3 seperate dice rolls (and a roll of a new kind at that, D% being v.rare in D20) just doesn't seem like a simple or neat solution.

I'm concerned with that as well, it makes things less elegant. Also, shields are really more like mobile cover than concealment.

 

[Krushnak]

if you can get your shield bonus to dv when flatfooted then why cant you use that great big broadsword or axe to parry with either? because you have to actively place the object infront of the incoming attack. and adding a d% roll to alot of combats is just overcomplicating a rule that already works fine. if you do include the d% roll then everytime some one misses because of that concealment chance then you have to treat is as a successful sunder to the shield.

as for reflexive parry ive been toying with the idea for a houserule in my game that as long as your total parry equals the required parry( so str bonus +4 and base parry 4 would do it) then you can take it.

 

[slaughterj]

if you can get your shield bonus to dv when flatfooted then why cant you use that great big broadsword or axe to parry with either?

If you are a guard marching down the street in formation with your shield up, and somebody jumps out and takes a swing at you, they may well hit the big shield that is simply there in the way, which is different than a mere weapon held in the hand which doesn't convey a parry bonus. The shield is basically mobile cover, and if you are walking up to a corner and someone trying to take a swing at you around it, they still incur the cover penalty *simply because it is in the way*. Shields should be able to work in the same way, though understandably not always, e.g., not against the thief sneaking up behind the shield-carrying guard on watch. I'm not advocating adding facing, just some GM judgment.

 

[Sutek]

The difference is that Shiled bonuses are static and Reflexive Parry, which grants you the ability to use your Parry to DV when you wouldn't ordinarily be able to, goes up with experience level. It could be +4, just like a shield, but it could be +10.

Keeping shield DV around isn't that big a deal, really. Especially at high levels.

Having them provide a Concealment bonus is more die rolling, but would consittute a Miss Chance that would be up all the tiem, which is actually easier to defeat, so that's the trade off with my option.

 

[Foxworthy]

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?

If the players are staying out in the open and getting thier shields ready I would deem that the start of combat. They are obviously preparing for a fight and going defensive. Combat doens't have to start with the first sword swing, and in fact DMG 3.5 deems the start of a combat encounter is when one party has a chance to see the other. So nobody in that fight would be flat footed unless they attacked at the moment they saw the other group.

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?

You don't get a shield bonus when feinted and the only reason you get it against an invisible attacker or being blinded is due to a missing chart. It should be consistent that you don't get your shield in those situations.

A) Characters going into a dark alley might raise thier shields, ready for an ambush, only to have thier shields not count suddenly, because they fail Spot checks and get jumped.

So if someone jumps them from behind they should get thier shield? Or fromt he side opposite thier shield arm? They must have reflexive parry to be able to react like that.

B) Climbing a wall, you can't use your shield, so you strp it to you back. Halfway up, archers start shooting at you from an opposite wall. You can't Dodge, which is what the Shield adds to for ranged attacks currently, so you can't use your shield as protection...even though it's a big plank of wood and metal covering a third of you body from the rear. Makes no sense.

The problem is that the rules for shields as DV against rear attacks only apply to when you're being flanked.

To burden down every single attack against a shield carrying opponent with a new D% roll taking most attacks from 2 to 3 seperate dice rolls (and a roll of a new kind at that, D% being v.rare in D20) just doesn't seem like a simple or neat solution.

I'm concerned with that as well, it makes things less elegant. Also, shields are really more like mobile cover than concealment.

Shields in no way act as concealment, even though I was wrong earlier when I said it about tower shields. Concealment is somehting that blocks or makes it difficult to see somethign or someone. A person weilding a shield can still be seen as easily.

Shields do fit the description of Cover in the fact they are a barrier between attacker and defender. Since the definition of cover even mentions that object can be cover.

If you want a bonus from shields when you are flat footed or what not the easiest way to rule it is that it acts as cover. You would give the defender a bonus to defence equal to the bonus to parry of the shield but only to attacks coming from the direction the shield is in.

It would be three square around the defender one in front, one in front and to the left and one directly to the left. Though if the shield is on the right side that would be flipped.

This bonus would only be for flat footed since in all other situations where you lose the benefits of the shield you aren't facing any one direction. It's more complicated then I like but it would work for what you want. Plus if you just apply it to flat footed defenders you wouldn't have to incorprate combat facing on a grand scale.

 

[slaughterj]

This bonus would only be for flat footed since in all other situations where you lose the benefits of the shield you aren't facing any one direction. It's more complicated then I like but it would work for what you want. Plus if you just apply it to flat footed defenders you wouldn't have to incorprate combat facing on a grand scale.

I think there a few situations where the shield bonus is warranted, e.g., the example I suggested about having a shield raised when entering an alley but still getting surprised, or maybe being a hallway and getting attacked by an invisible attacker in front of you, thus I think the rule should stay as it is but that GM judgment be exercised in certain situations to still apply the shield bonus if appropriate.

 

[Netherek]

One could feasibly allow the use Total Defense if one is essentially taking precautions such as walking in a dark alley with a shield raised. That bonus applies to Defense rather than a Dodge/Parry modifier so could be used, (not in the rules, but it works that way when Feinted).

Not sure I'd allow it, but it's workable.

 

[Sutek]

I's say that was a Ready, electing to Ready a Total Defense (1 standard action) prior to walking down a dark, scary alley. The character would have to only move into/through the alley at 5-foot increments, since that's also another rule of Ready actions.

The problem is that it's supposed to be a choice during an ongoing combat, so the INIT bits get screwey. I'd probably say that the person Readying get's an INIT one count lower than whoever the first act is in any ensuing combat.

 

[Netherek]

I agree it's problematic, it goes into account of possible abuse, such as metagaming "I'm always on the Defensive" issue. Not too mention, wouldn't that always be the cas in a strange and forbidding ruin?

I suppose one could say that TD would limit one to move actions, and search would be out ot the question when adopting that format though.

Without some serious testing I don't know, it's not been an issue in any game that I've played.

 

[Foxworthy]

I's say that was a Ready, electing to Ready a Total Defense (1 standard action) prior to walking down a dark, scary alley. The character would have to only move into/through the alley at 5-foot increments, since that's also another rule of Ready actions.

The problem is that it's supposed to be a choice during an ongoing combat, so the INIT bits get screwey. I'd probably say that the person Readying get's an INIT one count lower than whoever the first act is in any ensuing combat.

I agree with you that it is a ready action. I thinkt he problem is when should init be rolled. Conan has Init rolled at the start of a battle where the 3.5 DMG talks about doing it at the start of an encounter. Since the start of an encounter is when one party notices the other the people getting ready to jump the person walking down the alley could readya ctions to do that. Which would allow the person with the shield to take the combat action to defend himself.

Now the problem is that the people in the alley waiting to attack won't check the person walking in the alley flat footed since he is ready to be attacked. In a way though that's what they get for waiting for him to come down the alley as opposed to attacking him before he walked down the alley with his shield raised.

Of course the problem arrives at once you ahve the players roll the dice for Init they know something's up. Of course that can be countered anytime the players wnat to be prepared for combat have them roll init. Whether or not an enemy is around. It would slow things down though.

 

[Sutek]

I already said that. That's what my second paragraph is about.

The problem is that it's supposed to be a choice during an ongoing combat, so the INIT bits get screwey. I'd probably say that the person Readying get's an INIT one count lower than whoever the first act is in any ensuing combat.

In other words, if they want to make a ready action in anticipation of rolling an INIT, tey don't get to roll, and I place them as just slower in the subsequent INIT count (1 lower) than whoever is lowest in the ambushing group.

 

[slaughterj]

I already said that. That's what my second paragraph is about.

The problem is that it's supposed to be a choice during an ongoing combat, so the INIT bits get screwey. I'd probably say that the person Readying get's an INIT one count lower than whoever the first act is in any ensuing combat.

In other words, if they want to make a ready action in anticipation of rolling an INIT, tey don't get to roll, and I place them as just slower in the subsequent INIT count (1 lower) than whoever is lowest in the ambushing group.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but shouldn't the person readying be just before the highest initiative ambusher? Can you clarify your reasoning?

 

[Sutek]

Easily.

A Ready Action is something that you must do during combat, after INIT is already rolled.

Allowing a Ready Action when combat seems imenent is not allowed by the rules, but I'd allow it if the player was willing to sacrifice rolling INIT (once that happens, if it happens) with the knowledge that he's goin got have to be reactive to everyone that might ambush him, and so have an automatic INIT count 1 less than the lowest enemy INIT rolled.

This way I'm allowing him to react with a Total Defense ahead of INIT being rolled (which is normally not allowed) but he'd still be reacting after the bad guys in subsequent rounds of combat. Also, since he's still technically going ot be Flat-footed, and thus DV 10, the Total Defense Action only adds to that.

Seems a fair trade for allowing him to "break the rules" to begin with.

An easier way to go woul dbe to allow shields to confer a Concealment bonus at all times.

 

[Foxworthy]

An easier way to go woul dbe to allow shields to confer a Concealment bonus at all times.

Except they don't provide concealment nor are they like anythign that does provide concealment. If anything they would be cover. Since cover is a physical barrier and concealment is not.

You would still need to have it face one direction though since cover needs to be relative tot he combat grid.

 

[Sutek]

An easier way to go woul dbe to allow shields to confer a Concealment bonus at all times.

Except they don't provide concealment nor are they like anythign that does provide concealment. If anything they would be cover. Since cover is a physical barrier and concealment is not.

Absolutely not. Cover allows one to hide in D20, and I can't imagine that working very well. Cover is always a flat +4 to defense. With different kinds of shields out there, that hardly seems fair.

Concealment confers a Miss Chance, which is precisely what a shield does. Concealment can also be scaled to varrying degrees of % miss to more acurately represent different sizes of shields.

If anything, there could be a Feat called Shield Ready that allows you to keep your shield bonus at all times, keeping a vigilant eye ready for throwing the shield up to protect yourself in spite of being otherwise caught unawares (flat-footed).

 

[Foxworthy]

An easier way to go woul dbe to allow shields to confer a Concealment bonus at all times.

Except they don't provide concealment nor are they like anythign that does provide concealment. If anything they would be cover. Since cover is a physical barrier and concealment is not.

Absolutely not. Cover allows one to hide in D20, and I can't imagine that working very well. Cover is always a flat +4 to defense. With different kinds of shields out there, that hardly seems fair.

Concealment confers a Miss Chance, which is precisely what a shield does. Concealment can also be scaled to varrying degrees of % miss to more acurately represent different sizes of shields.

Cover doesn't always provide a flat +4 to DV. And a wall is cover. If you have a half wall in front of you it provides cover.

The Varying Degrees Of Cover in the rulebook cover that.

The rulebook also says

Cover makes atarget harder to hit by introducing an obstacle between the attack and it's destination.

Which is what a shield does. For example in the d20 SRD when someone hides behind a tower shield they get total cover, not total concealment. The reasn is you can still see the shield and hence the person weilding it.

Concealment i somethign that prevtns you from clearly seeing an opponent. Holding a shield doens't make you invisible or hard to see. Being in darkness makes someone hard to see, being invisible. That's concealment.

Miss chance represents you swinging or shooting your weapon in the wrong part of the five foot square. A shield does not make someone swing two feet away from where he really is. That's why it's not concealment.

Also even if it was concealment it would still need a direction on the map to face since the shield wouldn't conceal the whole square anyway only the direction it faces in.

Here is the 3.5 PHB GLossary defintion of miss chance

The possibilty that a successful attack roll misses due to the uncertainty about the target's location.

I'm pretty sure if you attack someone with a shield you are certain where they are.

Here's cover for you.

Any barrier between the attacker and defender. Such a barrier can be an object, creature, or magical force. Cover grants the defender a bonus to Armor Class

A shield is an object that provides a barrier between attacker and defender. Like Is aid if it's anythign it's cover. The diffrence between shields and cover is that you can move the shield to defend you can't (usually) move cover to defend yourself.

Plus a large shield is a +4 bonus which is equal to the bonus cover would provide if it covered that much of the body.

Also Concealment and Cover allow people to hide in d20 not just cover.