flat-footed: does your shield bonus to AC apply?

[Nail]

Why is it unrealistic to keep my sheild AC? I don't have to be moving to have a large sheild blocking over half my body. Why would this be lost if you were flat-footed?

Because of 3.5e facing.

That is: how do you know the enemy isn't attacking your back while you are flat-footed? If the enemy is attacking your back, why is your shield protecting it?

 

[Aaron2]

That is: how do you know the enemy isn't attacking your back while you are flat-footed? If the enemy is attacking your back, why is your shield protecting it?

The point isn't that they -can't- attack where the shield isn't, its that the presence of the shield limits the vulnerable spots a character has, thus making it harder for the enemy to find the vulnerable spots. If the character doesn't have a shield, the enemy can just stab him in the gut, with a shield hanging there, the enemy has to do more work (i.e. take a penalty to-hit) to find another soft spot to stab at.


Aaron

 

[Darklone]

I'm not sure I'm buying this line of reasoning. If central handgrip-type shield were prone to wrist breakage, the Romans wouldn't have used them for over a thousand years. Neither would the Celts, Gauls, Vikings etc. Same is true for a shield that routinely broke lances before the bearer's forearm.

Aaron

I didn't really mean to say it's worse. In general you're right, hand gripped shields are better for your arm in combat and I do think most of these injuries were due to inexperienced handling.

I just heard often enough from historians that shields were formation weapons, good against arrows and usually inferior in man to man combat.

 

[atom crash]

the shield may stop the blow from slicing into your arm (or a lance from skewering you), but all that blunt force has to go somewhere. the shield absorbs some, your arm absorbs the rest.