Boring shields

[Szatany]

I read the shields and it immediately jump out on me how bland they are. Almost an afterthough. My proposal is this:

Shields
  Buckler*          Cost     AC     Weight
    steel           20gp     +0/+1  10
    ironwood        80gp     +0/+1  5
    mithral         600gp    +1     5

  Light**
    steel           20gp     +1     15
    ironwood        100gp    +1     5
    dragon          800gp    +2     15

  Heavy***
    iron            30gp     +2     30
    kite            120gp    +2     20
    adamantine      2000gp   +3     40

* - Bucklers grant +1 AC versus melee attacks, but no bonus against ranged attacks.
** - While carrying a light shield, you add only half Dex modifier to your AC. This is the same as the effect of medium armor.
*** - While carrying a heavy shield, you don't add your Dex modifier to your AC and you have a -5 penalty to speed. This is the same as the effect of heavy armor.

 

[Kzach]

I agree with you that they're boring. But I think that there should be more of a penalty to wielding a heavy shield than just ten extra pounds. Any character wanting to wield a heavy shield won't blink at 10 extra pounds of weight so it's a no brainer to go a heavy over light shield. But if you made a heavy shield cost -5 feet of movement, THEN you'd have a situation where deciding to wield one is a... weighty decision

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Armor and shields

Also note:

Medium and heavy armor compared to light armor seems out of balance.

Especially wearing medium armor never gains you a benefit, because as soon as you get your first AC increase from half dex, you get your second increase from full dex...

So IMHO all medium armors give AC that is one point too low or need a secondary benefit.

So with this change to shields, using medium or heavy armor with current value at least makes some sense.

Edit:

it would actually be sufficient, if buckler, light and heavy shields would be listed under light, medium and heavy armor respectively.
A buckler could actually give no bonus at all, but count as a shield as requiement for abilities.

 

[Szatany]

But if you made a heavy shield cost -5 feet of movement, THEN you'd have a situation where deciding to wield one is a... weighty decision

I did. Penalty from heavy shield+heavy armor stacks for a total of -10 ft.

 

[Szatany]

it would actually be sufficient, if buckler, light and heavy shields would be listed under light, medium and heavy armor respectively.
A buckler could actually give no bonus at all, but count as a shield as requiement for abilities.

Interesting idea. Could work, but I would have to read the full book first, to see if there are any worthwile shield abilities.

 

[Mattachine]

Alas, another edition wherein shields just aren't that good.
Shields should give better AC bonuses, if they are to be compared to armor.

 

[ferratus]

I don't know why D&D designers undervalue shields so much. If anything, it should grant a greater AC bonus than the armour does.

What is more, we can't have yet another edition where two weapon fighting is the obvious choice vs. wielding a shield. Two attacks a round is like giving someone a +10 bonus, so a shield bonus should also be suitably high (+4 or +5) to compensate for that attack advantage.

Either that, or throw in some extra shield attacks that don't do quite as much damage as another weapon attack, but allow you to do free pushes or bashes while keeping your AC bonus.

 

[eamon]

Alas, another edition wherein shields just aren't that good.
Shields should give better AC bonuses, if they are to be compared to armor.

I don't think there's a contest here - they stack, right? Given that attack bonuses don't scale, I think that extra bit of defense is that irrelevant. The bonus for shields was surely decided assuming you're wearing some armor.

What is more, we can't have yet another edition where two weapon fighting is the obvious choice vs. wielding a shield. Two attacks a round is like giving someone a +10 bonus, so a shield bonus should also be suitably high (+4 or +5) to compensate for that attack advantage.

I haven't seen any rules about dual wielding, but your comparison is definitely off. Assuming fighters do get multiple attacks, and are in turn attacked multiple times, that extra bit of AC will apply to each and every one of those attacks, whereas an extra attack will not necessarily represent a doubling of the effectiveness. Without rules however, it's just speculation.

We can however compare two-handed weapons with one-handed weapons; these seem to do about 2 more damage on average. I think a +1/+2 to AC is quite likely to be quite competitive with that, but only time will tell.

 

[ferratus]

Two weapon fighting has been the way to build a high damage fighter or ranger in both 2e, 3e and PF and have been showing up far too often as a result. A fighter that has two weapon fighting hits twice as often at low levels, and only gets slightly worse at high levels (because they use the highest BAB to hit). That is half the rounds of punishment that the sword and board fighter has to take, while only giving up 5% to 10% of their defense.

Getting a 5% or 10% bonus to your AC just isn't worth giving up an extra attack. Two handed weapons are also a waste of time compared to TWF because they don't do twice as much damage as a one-handed weapon as they should. It is fairly comparable to a shield though.

If I had my way...

TWF - 2 attacks
THF - double damage
Shield and one weapon - +4 AC.

And no extra feats to balance everything out, because that looks like each thing is equally advantageous in terms of game mechanics.

 

[Tallifer]

I don't know why D&D designers undervalue shields so much. If anything, it should grant a greater AC bonus than the armour does.

What is more, we can't have yet another edition where two weapon fighting is the obvious choice vs. wielding a shield. Two attacks a round is like giving someone a +10 bonus, so a shield bonus should also be suitably high (+4 or +5) to compensate for that attack advantage.

Either that, or throw in some extra shield attacks that don't do quite as much damage as another weapon attack, but allow you to do free pushes or bashes while keeping your AC bonus.

Forsooth. And Amen.

In many systems like Runequest and Pendragon it is suicidal to go without a shield unless you are exceptionally skilled with a parrying dagger. In pre-gunpowder combat, shields were essential. Roman legionnaires, Greek phalangists and hoplites, mediaeval knights, Viking warriors: they all used shields. Samurai are an exception and I do not know anything about Oriental warfare to explain that.