Inspired by the “Shields Shall Be Splintered!” houserule at Trollsmyth, I’ve been thinking about how such a mechanic could be used to make sword-and-boarding a more interesting and flavorful mechanical choice. And maybe address some of the balance issues that make them so much less appealing than wielding a two-handed weapon.
SHIELDS: Once per round a character can use their shield to block (or partially block) an incoming attack. Both the shield and the shield’s wielder suffer the full damage of the attack, but the shield’s wielder can subtract a number of points of damage equal to their Base Attack Bonus. A shield cannot be used to block a touch attacks or attacks that bypass armor in any way.
A shield can be used to block damage from any effect which requires an attack roll (such as a scorching ray).
A shield can also be used to block damage from any effect which allows a Reflex save (such as a fireball). If the character makes a Reflex save for half damage, the damage blocked by the shield is subtracted before being halved.
A character who is flat-footed or unaware of an attack cannot use a shield block.
THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS
(1) There are quite a few possibilities here for feats to extend this basic capability: For example, allowing characters to block up to twice their BAB in damage. Or a feat similar to Combat Reflexes that would allow a character to make a number of shield blocks equal to their Dexterity bonus. Should the “blocking spells and other effects” be relegated to a feat, as well? Is it too useful straight out of the box?
(2) Instead of making this a 1/round ability, should it be an immediate action?
(3) Is this useful enough that the normal AC bonus from a shield should be eliminated?
And, of course, the big question is: Does it work? Is it balanced? As the title of the post suggests, I’ve given this zero playtesting. It’s just a nifty idea that tickled the hind-quarters of my brain. It undoubtedly needs some tweaking at the very least.
Echo 12 Items
Justin Alexander
Lot of interesting discussion in here.
Re: Touch spells. Armor doesn’t block touch spells, so I don’t think a shield should, either. (Although this does raise the issue of whether or not animated shields should give a bonus to Touch AC. I think you could make a pretty strong case that they should, since there’s no physical connection between them and their owner.)
Re: Comparison to Tumble. I actually did think about using something similar to my tumbling house rules, but I wanted to avoid adding any kind of die roll to the equation. Since this is something that sword-and-boarders are likely to be doing nearly every round (and happens in addition to the normal attack resolution, not instead of it), adding an entirely new layer of die-based adjudication would add bloat to the resolution times in combat.
Re: Using AoOs. I agree. I’ve actually be incorporating a variety of “actions of opportunity” into my house rules (all of which use your AoOs for secondary effects), and it makes sense for this to be one of them. The real difficulty with these mechanics is making sure that Combat Reflexes doesn’t become a Must Have feat.
Re: Bookkeeping in general. To me, it doesn’t seem particularly arduous. It’s only slightly more difficult than handling any other damage reduction mechanic. It’s also voluntary bookkeeping (i.e., you never have to do the bookkeeping unless you choose to do the maneuver), so if someone does find it excessive they can simply choose to not use the mechanic. And players who do choose to use the mechanic on a regular basis will simply note the hardness and hit points of their shield on their character sheet, allowing them to quickly the perform the simple addition and subtraction necessary.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010, 12:05:43 AM
Muninn
@fliprushman: worst case scenario, nobody ever takes advantage of it, and the amount of paperwork doesn’t increase.
The only additional paperwork even if people did use it would be recording their shield’s hardness and hit points (hardly what I would consider to be an unreasonable addition, especially since the sunder option already brings the possiblility that those might have to be tracked anyway). That, and keeping track of whatever feats they take, which wouldn’t be a paperwork increase because it means that they wouldn’t be taking other feats. As to giving them another option to keep track of, it would only do so to people who use shields.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 9:19:59 PM
fliprushman
Though I would like to mention that in 4e (and this is one of it’s finer points), Shields confer a bonus to the users reflex defense. So this could help fighters with their poor saves. Some food for thought.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 7:36:46 PM
fliprushman
I tend to think how the shield works currently in 3.5 is appropriate enough. From what you propose, it would increase paperwork, give the players something else to think about (as if they didn’t have enough as it is Wink ) and could eventually reach the point of breaking with the addition of feats and items, not that it’s anywhere near that point yet. Besides, there are enough books out there to make whatever type of warrior you wish and make it competent in whatever style it wants.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 7:34:54 PM
Muninn
continued from above:
5) I like 1d30’s idea that a shield deflection could transfer the target of a touch attack to the shield itself.
6) A shield-block should probably apply to all attacks of a full attack (since they are all coming from the same target, and as such blocking a second attack from the same target as the first attack should be easier than blocking one from a second opponent. However, the game should still represent that blocking multiple attacks from a single target is harder than blocking a single attack from a single target. My thoughts are as follows:
6A) Since shield blocking works off of BAB, using a single shield block to block a full attack means that the block will become less and less effective with subsequent attacks from the same target (-5 BAB to each subsequent attack). If the defender wishes, they may instead use up an additional attack of opportunity to renew their blocking ability back to it’s full value. the subsequent blocks may only be used on attacks from the same opponent.
7) As written, there is no benefit to using a superior shield. Allow the user to add their shield’s AC bonus (or possibly some fraction of the shield’s hardness?) to the amount of damage that they may subtract from themselves. This (combined with #4), means that the ability is actually useful to low-level characters.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 2:59:29 PM
Muninn
Some thoughts on the rule:
1) The shield’s bonus to AC represents an attempt by the shield user to deflect or redirect any attacks that are directed at the wielder. This ability represents a concentrated attempt to stop a single attack. As such, it might make sense that this ability causes the shield-user to lose their shield bonus to AC until their next turn after using this ability (similar to Shield Bash, possibly with the option of taking a feat to lessen or eliminate the penalty). As such, it is more likely that the attack will hit, but the attack will deal less damage.
2) Similarly to what you mentioned in “Thoughts on Tumbling”, a possible problem with this ability is that no matter how good the attacker is, the defender will always manage to get his shield up on time, unless he has multiple opponents and has already used this ability. I have no idea how to adjust for this (a reflex save sounds like a logical choice, but would have to be balanced against the attack somehow).
3) Using this ability could consume one of the defender’s attacks of opportunity. This allows the Combat Reflexes feat to cover this ability by default. If the prospect that the defender without CR would have to sacrifice their only attack of opportunity in order to use this ability seems to limiting, it could be house-ruled to be that a single attack of opportunity and a single shield block could be allowed each round, and each extra opportunity provided by combat reflexes could be used for attack or defense. (this seems overpowered to me, however).
4) Possibly, in addition to the BAB subtraction of damage, the defender would add an ability modifier (either strength or constitution) to the amount of damage they could ignore.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 2:59:14 PM
1d30
Danny below mentions that a trained staff wielder can easily beat a swordsman in armor. And that a staff should be the equal in terms of game mechanics as a two-handed sword.
I’m sure that doesn’t need a counter argument, either from the perspective of reality, or good game design, or comparing apples to apples.
If anything, it’s clear that weapon development did in fact progress beyond the unshod wooden stick, so perhaps 30 millenia of human history is good enough evidence against it.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 1:30:55 PM
1d30
I think the shield user should be able to block touch attacks, except that if he does then the touch hits the shield. This may be undesirable. But a touch-delivered Cause Light Wounds won’t hurt the shield, obviously. A touch-delivered Disintegrate certainly would.
I’d suggest that you leave the AC bonus for the shield, but say that at any time you can have the shield absorb the damage from an attack. Look up the Object Hardness and HP rules. Remember to add any magical value of the shield. Of course it will need repairs regularly.
If someone has a feat for shield specialization, when he uses his shield to absorb damage the shield takes half the damage and the other half is deflected away. This dramatically increases the effectiveness of the shield though. I’d also give the ability to absorb Reflex-based save damage with this feat.
I would also eliminate every two-weapon fighting feat that offers an AC bonus. You make your choice: two-handed weapon does more damage, two weapons have more chances to hit but do less damage per hit, and weapon and shield gives better defense. If you let people with two weapons get good defense, the waters become muddy.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 1:23:37 PM
Fenyx
@Alex – The feel of Trollsmyth’s fits OD&D perfectly but for 3.5 I like this one better.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 8:58:13 AM
Alex Schroeder
I fear that the shield suffering the full damage of the attack will result in too much bookkeeping. You need to know your shield’s hardness & hitpoints, and you’ll use them once per round as well. Trollsmyth’s rule is easier to use in that respect.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010, 4:05:19 AM
Danny
Oops, “colley”–> “volley”.
Monday, May 03, 2010, 11:18:38 PM
Danny
The thing most game systems seem to ignore is that every weapon combination (sword&shield, 2-h sword, 2xsword, sword & hand) is just that, a weapon combination, and not (except in untrained hands) 2 separate weapons. So it’s the weapon combination that needs attack/defence/damage stats, not two weapons with separate stats. Each combination provides different defensive and offensive capabilities.
Why do system give dual wielders 2 attacks compared to those using a single weapon (thus making sword and board relatively unpopular)? A guy with a single sword can probably make 12 or more strikes in a 6 second round, even against multiple targets, so why give the 2 sword guy twice as many attackes? Against an actively defending opponent, probably most of the hits won’t contact cleanly enough to cause damage, but may cause some fatigue, The system(s) abtracts this into a single attack & a single damage roll. It should do so similarly for any weapon combo.
A 2-handed sword is generally a very fast weapon that can do as much damage as a 1-handed sword with much smaller movements. Sure, you can probably wind up with a massive hit, but if your opponent is facing you you’ll get skewered while you’re doing it (a 2-h sword has to double up on offensive and defensive duties). So i’d suggest it usually does damage congruent with sword & shield, but maybe has high crits. 2 swords is not the same as a sword and a very narrow shield, both swords con provide both offence & defence, but they have to share the duties. Maybe crits are more frequent but less massive. Sword & shield just divide offence & defence a bit more unevenly between the two. I’d put crits somewhere between the previous examples. If you’ve ever seen a staff in the hands of a trained user, you’ll know that it can probably beat most swordfighters, even in armour. I’d treat it similarly to a 2-h sword.
I guess I’m saying that in the hands of an equally competent user, most reasonable weapon combinations will have a similar effect, with some minor differentiation. (I’m exluding obviously inferior combinations here, such as single dagger. Rapier may be difficult to quantify here, it doesn’t provide as strong a defence against heavier weapons, and really relies on agility against armoured opponents.)
So sword & board shouldn’t be penalized by the system in the first place (i.e. inferior damage stats). So there shouldn’t be the need to make it more attractive by adding such capabilities. (Sure shields provide some static protection, and probably will help a lot in a massed colley of arrows in a war, but it’s just a different option for how you save on a reflex save, rather than additional protection, and is just another way of blocking a blow rather than being additional armor).
Just my 2c worth.
Monday, May 03, 2010, 11:13:04 PM