Shields as cover?

[EricNoah]

I had two crazy ideas as I was in the fog of sleep this morning. One involved characters being able to burn off STR or CON points and trade them for hit points at critical moments -- it would keep characters (PCs or NPCs) alive at critical moments while simultaneously weakening them. But I haven't thought that one through. Here's the idea that I do quite like...

What if shields provided a Cover bonus instead of a stackable Armor bonus? Make a Small Shield grant a +1 cover bonus to AC and no bonus to Reflex saves. A Large Shields grants +2 cover bonus to AC and a +1 cover bonus to Reflex saves. Of course the Reflex save bonus from a shield wouldn't help you to avoid falling into a pit, it would be to save against things like fireballs and lightning bolts and dragon breath and stuff like that.

Shields wouldn't apply to touch AC (touching the shield is like touching the bearer of the shield). Shields might apply to flat-footed AC (still thinking about that).

Also then I might want to develop a larger shield (smaller than a tower shield though) that grants a +4 cover bonus to AC and +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves. It would be pretty hard to move around a lot with it, but might make a nifty treat for a dwarvern defender.

The question of course would be "what about bucklers" -- I would argue that you use them like the Dodge feat -- it's still a cover bonus to AC of +1 but you have to pick one opponent each round to be using it against.

Thoughts?

 

[Shayuri]

I like it!

There's some areas that need to be hashed out, but as a general concept, I really like it.

It's intuitively valid, for one thing, and it meshes well with the revised Shield spell (which is basically just a magic, self-animated, very large shield).

I dunno if I agree with the Reflex save bonuses though. For one thing, it raises the whole ugly spectre of "when do the bonuses apply?" which can't really have a solid, simple ruling. Complex rules are, IMO, to be avoided. Which is one reason I like calling shields cover bonuses, because calling them armor bonuses opens up all kinds of cans of worms.

Sweet idea on bucklers too. I feel silly that it never occurred to me before.

I'd be of the opinion that shield AC should probably apply to flatfooted AC, if only because it does under the existing ruleset and it seems unfair to change that. Bucklers would be the exception, I think...perhaps a rule that you can only choose a target for the buckler AC on your action.

Touch AC is tricky... On the one hand, I tend to agree that if armor doesn't protect, a shield wouldn't. But the cover bonus from the Shield spell DOES protect, as do other cover bonuses to AC. There needs to be some easy way to remember when to apply cover AC and when not to. Now, a shield spell is a magic construct, and it's not touched in any way by the caster...maybe that's the critical difference? But then, the canny player will note, what about a magically animated physical shield? Will that apply to touch AC?

Deefeecult!

 

[EricNoah]

Well the Reflex save is half the reason I want to do it this way. There are many illustrations showing a warrior hiding behind his shield as a dragon breathes fire on him.

We'd just use the same rule as exists for cover: "Add this bonus to Reflex saves against attacks that affect an area. These bonuses, however, only apply to attacks that originate or spread out from a point on the other side of the cover."

Still going back and forth about whether shields should apply to touch AC. I can envision a scene where an evil sorcerer shoots a magic ray at a warrior, and he blocks it with his shield. Maybe, though, that should be a neat new "special magical property" that could be applied to a shield ("ray blocker" or something like that)?

 

[Shayuri]

Hmmm, yeah...

Okay. How about this...

What if we invent a whole new class of AC bonus? Call it the "shield" bonus. Shield bonuses work a lot like armor bonuses (and can have enhancement bonuses) with the following differences:

-- They apply to ranged touch (but not melee touch) attacks.

-- 1/2 the shield bonus counts as a bonus to Ref saves against Line, Burst or Cone effects.


All shields (except bucklers) provide a Shield bonus to AC. The Shield spell still provides a Cover bonus to AC (and is not in any way changed by the creation of this new AC type). Bucklers provide a special +1 cover bonus against a single foe of the wearer's choosing. Choosing a foe to apply this to is a free action that can only be taken on the wearer's turn.

That way we can give shields exactly the abilities we want, without worrying about mucking up the already-defined properties of an existing bonus type.

 

[Technik4]

Just my .02. As far as touch spells, the shield should count towards the AC. As you said, most spells with a ranged touch roll to hit would simply hit the shield. I like the dodge-like buckler too I might actually remember if I had a +2 bonus

Esp when you have a very enchanted buckler though, seems underpowered, maybe there could be a new buckler enchantment to provide protection against everyone?

Technik

 

[Destil]

Defenatly an interesting idea, as far as Touch AC & Reflex saves: What about a feat / Feat Chain. Like one feat where you gain a reflex save bonus, one where you get the bonus vs. touch attacks from a shield, and perhaps even a feat where someone behind you can benifit from some of your shield bonus on their reflex saves?

 

[DonAdam]

I do this already, and it's worked out fine.

Here's what I've done:
-Buckler, like other folks said, is too small to count as real cover

-Shields grant the cover bonus to AC; large shields can upgrade other cover to the next highest category (like sticking a shield in front of an arrow slit) while small shields can only upgrade from 9/10 to full cover

-Cover also means that they protect against attacks of opportunity. I say that, like dodge, you pick one opponent to whom this applies for small shields, but can pick two adjacent opponents for large shields. This makes sense, being able to circle someone freely if you keep your shield between you and them.

-It still works in all ways like a cover bonus, including against touch attacks. The reason, for me, is that I think rays and such have to hit something with the body actually underneath it, and that would only apply to a small section of the shield with the arm under it.

For another example, think about another cover bonus- a door. If I had just opened a door, and had my hand on the handle, and some rude wizard fellow tried to blast me with a ray of enfeeblement, if it hit the door should I be affected? That's essentially the same scenario as the shield, but on a slightly larger scale.

Or, consider a tower shield. A character in a tower shield is immune to touch attacks from 1 direction, even though his arm is attached to the shield.