Are shields underpowered?

[willpax]

After reading through some of the threads about relating d20 mechanics to historical infantry tactics, it seems that there is a creeing suspicion that a shield (in the rules) just doesn't do as much for you as it would in real life.

So: does anyone have any rules that make shields more attractive without making them overpowering?

I have been toying around with making them provide a kind of cover from missile fire, to wit:

buckler: no change.
small shield: +1 AC, +1 vs missiles from front and shield side.
large shield: +2 AC, +3 vs missiles from front and shield side.

These additional bonuses are not available in situations where the dexterity bonuses would be unavailable (such as being caught flat footed).

Comments and other suggestions for shields?

 

[Eternalknight]

I think shields work fine; however, as with anything else, if you find some better for them go ahead and change them. It comes back to the same old thing really: D&D is not supposed to be too accurate with real-life - it is supposed to give a good enough representation without being too complicated. That said: Change anything you like! It's your game. Your rules would work fine without being too complicated or overpowering.

 

[hong]

Shields are VERY useful later on, because of how the rules for magic armour work. A large shield effectively adds +7 to your AC with the +5 enhancement bonus, which makes a sword+shield fighter much more survivable than a two-hander fighter or a two-weapon fighter (all other things being equal).

 

[reapersaurus]

jesus, hong - what kind of response is that?

You rely on a magic shield to make it effective? come on...

willpax - I have almost posted a thread like this many times.
Shields IMO are very underpowered, and I think it's terrible how a DEX fighter in Chain Shirt can be almost as protected as a fighter in Full Plate and Shield.

If you're going to sacrifice the extra damage from both TWF and 2-HF, you should get more AC bonus than 2.
Hell, the Dodge feat gives you +1 AC, and it sounds like people think that's underpowered.

As to your change: are you saying a Large Shield should do +4 bonus to AC, +5 vs missles?

On my House Rules, they do a flat +1 AC more, so Smalls are +2, Larges are +3 vs. all attacks.

 

[willpax]

Hong: the magical bonus stacking is a valid point, but less so for the type of campaign I run (very magic-item poor). I suppose this rule tweak was one way of making the rules work without assuming a huge magical economy.

Reapersaurus: what I was saying is that UglyNakedGuy (dex 10) with a small shield has AC 11 (12 vs missiles in proper facing), and with large shield has AC 12 (AC 15 vs missiles in proper facing). Your +1 bump may be simpler, as it doesn't involve two sets of numbers or bothersome calculations of facing.

I got the numbers by extrapolating cover rules into a d20 mechanic: small shield provide one quarter cover, large shields provide one half (roughly).

At the level of stereotypical infantry (L2-L4), this kind of bonus might make a big difference, and provide one part of a rationale for traditional infantry equipment and tactics.

The other part would be a "formation fighting" skill that will be the subject of a future post.

Anyone else have any shield ideas?

 

[DonAdam]

Here's what I do:

Make shields a cover bonus to AC. That way, the person wielding them doesn't suffer attacks of opportunity.

If that's a little too powerful for you, then make them select a number of opponents equal to the bonus the shield provides that they don't suffer attacks against.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

My thoughts on this:

D&D shields are meant to be used in conjunction with armor. (Because bonusses to AC are more significant as a character reaches the high end of the AC scale for his level).

A character with no armor but a sword and large shield is AC 12+dex. Not too impressive. Odds are good that a first level fighter will hit him roughly 50% of the time (as opposed to 60% of the time without the shield).

OTOH, a first level fighter with chain mail and a large shield is AC 17 +dex. The same first level fighter will hit this character approximately 25% of the time (as opposed to 35% without the shield).

In the conjunction with armor, a shield reduces the amount of hits a character sustains by almost 50%. Not too shabby. Without armor, however, the shield isn't much help. (It blocked about 17% of the damage the character would have taken).

At higher levels, enchanted shields are essential for high armor classes. A 10th level fighter with +3 fullplate, a ring of protection +1 and an amulet of natural armor +1, and a 12 dex is AC 24. That character probably has a +15/+10 to +18/+13 attack bonus so against similar foes, he will usually take it on the chin.

On the other hand, a character who had a +3 large shield as well would have AC 29 and will take a lot less damage (even the high end attack bonus stands only a 50% chance of hitting with the primary attack).

This will break down, however, if a campaign reduces the amount of magic available. If magic fullplate isn't available, even a +1 shield will only take the character's AC to 24. And most attacks will still hit the character. If magic shields arent' available, the situation will become even worse for armor. Characters will often be better off eschewing heavy armor entirely and relying on spring attack to reduce damage and two handed weapons or dual wielding to inflict damage more quickly than their foes. In such a reduced magic campaign, characters need some way to scale their armor class with level. Increasing the power of shields across the board is one way to do this (Neverwinter Nights didn't break anything by making tower shields normal shields that gave a +3 armor bonus). A better way of dealing with the lack of magic would be to add a defense bonus similar to the mechanic in Wheel of Time or Star Wars d20. That would help make up for the lack of armor enhancements.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I make all the shields give a cover bonus (in conjunction with armour providing DR rather than harder to hit). I also allow shields to be used for "active parries" vs anything, while weapons can only be used for "active parries" vs other weapons of not more than one size bigger than you are.

Details of my house rules on the website in my .sig if you are interested, but I imagine you are not looking for such a drastic solution.

Cheers

 

[willpax]

Plane Sailing: I actually use a VP/WP system, armor providing damage reduction and am writing a feat/skill/VP magic system already, so I don't think I am too scared of changing things. I do want to make sure that I don't make things needlessly complicated.

DonAdam: It would make shields very attractive to make them "avoid attacks of opportunity free" cards, but I suppose you could limit that to front and shield side attacks--a shield won't do much good if someone has you flanked on your weapon side. However, it would make the shield wall formation very formidable (as long as the wall holds, those reach weapons aren't getting any free attacks). I'll have to think about that one.

What I may do: bump up small (to +2 AC, +3 vs. missiles in proper facing) and large (to +3 AC, +5 vs missiles in proper facing) shields. Tower shields will be +4 (+7 vs missiles in proper facing), but you can't run or charge with a tower shield.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I would advise against introducing a facing mechanic for shields into D&D. The bookkeeping will be a pain (it is with the Shield spell) and I'm not sure that it will add much to the game. (In fact, since anyone in melee combat can 5' step to evade tower shields and shield spells (unless they're oriented on the diagonal with the opponent in the diagonal square), it might make shields altogether useless. Introducing a facing mechanic for missile combat only and leaving the system faceless for melee doesn't make a lot of sense either).

All told, I'd advise simply increasing the AC bonus offered by shields across the board (probably with the exception of the buckler) and possibly granting an additional bonus against ranged attacks.