Ok,how horrible is this

[Derren]

It would be a logistical nightmare. The Bugbears would have to keep the babies alive somehow for the shields to be useful. How are they feeding and otherwise caring for them?
Not to mention that sneaking around is very hard when you have a baby strapped to you. Gagging the baby without killing it something huge brutes like Bugbears would likely have trouble with.

Not to mention that, if the fight goes well for the heroes, the baby won't suffer a scratch, as you don't strike the breastplate when fighting an armoured enemy but the areas not covered be plate. The only danger for the baby is when the heroes miss or the Bugbear falls over. But the babies would be dead after the combat anyway as all the sudden movement won't be good for them.

Its simply too unpractical and too silly.

Yeah, I wouldn't. If I saw something like that, I would not "get into" trying to fight without hitting the babies, nor would I try to act gallant. I would mentally flag the entire situation as a contrived and unenjoyable aspect of the game, say to the group, "I'm sorry but there will be collateral damage," and then slaughter the bugbears without any caution for the (literal) meat shield babies. Not that I would want to be mean, but I don't find such a thing appropriate at all, so I would prefer to just to say, "Screw it," and push the game on to something else.

That would be my reaction as weal. Moan as the DM sets up a silly, contrived situation and say "screw it".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But the babypult would be effective.

 

[Remathilis]

It would depend on the context.

A group of 1d4+1 bugbears in a dungeon with baby-armor would be stupid.

BUT

If the PCs were investigating a town that had been attacked, a group of bugbears MIGHT go about using hostages as "human shields". Literally. Taking some doors or tables, propping them up in the dirt, strapping a young lad or lass to it, and using it for cover as they fire crossbows behind it sniper-style is certainly feasible (do the PCs return fire and risk civilians or rush across the field of death?) Similarly, a trio of bugbears with babies strapped to heavy shields (which the weight would give the bugbears -2 to hit) fighting with daggers (or worse, flails) and fighting defensively would make some sense, esp. if the bugbears were a "hold line" to let other goblinoids flee the town with slaves in toe.

Hmmmm.... that sounds like a pretty good idea...

 

[Skallgrim]

It would depend on the context.

A group of 1d4+1 bugbears in a dungeon with baby-armor would be stupid.

BUT

If the PCs were investigating a town that had been attacked, a group of bugbears MIGHT go about using hostages as "human shields". Literally. Taking some doors or tables, propping them up in the dirt, strapping a young lad or lass to it, and using it for cover as they fire crossbows behind it sniper-style is certainly feasible (do the PCs return fire and risk civilians or rush across the field of death?) Similarly, a trio of bugbears with babies strapped to heavy shields (which the weight would give the bugbears -2 to hit) fighting with daggers (or worse, flails) and fighting defensively would make some sense, esp. if the bugbears were a "hold line" to let other goblinoids flee the town with slaves in toe.

Hmmmm.... that sounds like a pretty good idea...

But even in this case, wouldn't it simply be more effective and easier to simply use the standard old 'human shield' tactic, of taking hostages, and, if necessary, simply holding them in front of you, or hiding behind a crowd of them?

i'm all for making Bugbears seem evil and reprehensible, but it seems too Rube Goldberg for them to design armor to hold a baby, or even to bother making their shields heavy and unresponsive by tying infants to them. What's wrong with "Don't attack, hero! I'll kill the child!"

It's the same moral dilemma, and the same possible outcomes, and doesn't result in Baby-Breastplate armor. If this works, why don't Dragons strap villagers over their vital organs?

 

[Asmor]

i'm all for making Bugbears seem evil and reprehensible, but it seems too Rube Goldberg for them to design armor to hold a baby

The PCs approach the hut where the bugbear is holed up.

"Stop!" he shouts. "I'm standing on a bit of rope. If you should kill me, the rope will be released. The rope is connected to--"

The PCs get bored listening and kill the bugbear, setting into motion a terribly complicated device of death and destruction.

The rogue grabs an egg rolling down a track made of two parallel pool cues, halting the device and saving the poor woman with an anvil hanging over her head and an un-lit candle beneath the rope.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I would think a slightly-less-oddball-looking-and-more-CoCesque effect could be had by having the bugbears wearing armor that is spiritually linked to captives held back in their lair. Thus damage done to the bugbear is instead transferred back to the unwilling captives.

This solves the problem of feeding babies on the march to keep them alive, as well as giving the bugbears even more reason for raiding villages and taking more captives (to power up their armor for more raiding).

It also gives you a great plot hook for something the good guys need to go take care of.

DS

 

[Derren]

I would think a slightly-less-oddball-looking-and-more-CoCesque effect could be had by having the bugbears wearing armor that is spiritually linked to captives held back in their lair. Thus damage done to the bugbear is instead transferred back to the unwilling captives.

This solves the problem of feeding babies on the march to keep them alive, as well as giving the bugbears even more reason for raiding villages and taking more captives (to power up their armor for more raiding).

It also gives you a great plot hook for something the good guys need to go take care of.

DS

Problem is that the defenders need to know (and believe) this, otherwise this wouldn't have any advantage. Not to mention the Bugbears need to have the ressources to actually do this (strong spellcaster).

 

[Simon Atavax]

It would be a logistical nightmare. The Bugbears would have to keep the babies alive somehow for the shields to be useful. How are they feeding and otherwise caring for them?
Not to mention that sneaking around is very hard when you have a baby strapped to you. Gagging the baby without killing it something huge brutes like Bugbears would likely have trouble with.

Exactly. The whole idea is so ridiculous that I assume the OP is either (a) joking (i.e. he didn't actually do this in his game) or (b) His game is a bizarre, Monty Python-inspired comedy game . . . light-years removed from most forms of D&D.

** Also, we're supposed to assume that the Bugbears don't mind the babies peeing and pooping all over them? Puh-leeze.

 

[Simon Atavax]

It's the same moral dilemma, and the same possible outcomes, and doesn't result in Baby-Breastplate armor. If this works, why don't Dragons strap villagers over their vital organs?

Of all the indignities villagers must endure in fantasy roleplaying games, being strapped to a dragon's schlong must be the worst.

(And yes, when you said "vital organs," my mind went straight to the gutter.)

 

[Aramax]

Exactly. The whole idea is so ridiculous that I assume the OP is either (a) joking (i.e. he didn't actually do this in his game) or (b) His game is a bizarre, Monty Python-inspired comedy game . . . light-years removed from most forms of D&D.

** Also, we're supposed to assume that the Bugbears don't mind the babies peeing and pooping all over them? Puh-leeze.

Wow I admit I was provoking for a response a little,but I am really surprised at the humor atributed this(not the poking fun at me,that was almost required .My players were all pretty shocked and roleplayed thier dismay wonderfully.They saved the babies they could and re-united them w/thier captive mothers.Nobody laughed,not one little bit.
I'm also a little surprised that I need to spell out that this was a static defence and they wern't just walking around strapped on.Probly' my fault for under explaining(like I always do(my biggest flaw as a DM)).