Shields nerfed in D&D?

[replicant2]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the D&D rules dramatically underestimate the effectiveness of shields?

History has shown how crucial shields were to warriors. Look at how the Spartans revered their shields, for instance. Quite simply, shields kept fighters alive in combat. Shields have always been the most important piece of equipment a hand-to-hand fighter possessed, outside of his primary weapon.

For all that, a +1 to AC is woefully, woefully inadequate. I was happy to see D&D give large shields a +2, but I still think it's too low. Ask any fighter what he'd rather have to turn an axe blow -- a suit of leather, or a heavy wooden shield with a steel rim. It's no contest, yet both have the same mechanical bonus to AC.

Me, I'd like to shields grant a +4 to AC in melee, slighly less effective vs. missile weapons. Any thoughts?

 

[Turjan]

Me, I'd like to shields grant a +4 to AC in melee, slighly less effective vs. missile weapons. Any thoughts?

Drizzt would hate you!

 

[I'm A Banana]

I toy around with using the Cover rules for shields. Light shields grant cover, heavy shields grant improved cover, tower shields grant complete cover....haven't thought it through much, but it's something I kind of want to do.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the D&D rules dramatically underestimate the effectiveness of shields?

I'm pleased to say that me experience in this area is relatively limited, though I did play sword-fighting with an SCA chapter one day, and can say that it would have been a lot less fun without the benifit of a shield.

 

[frankthedm]

Yes the D&D rules dramatically underestimate the effectiveness of shields.

 

[John Morrow]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the D&D rules dramatically underestimate the effectiveness of shields?

Yes. D&D, via hit points, also dramatically undervalues armor of all sorts. Why? Because D&D is designed to reflect fantasy movies and fiction, not reality. Movies are full of people who fight without helmets, shields, or, heck, even in chainmail bikinis or loin cloths. Realistic? No. Cool looking. Yup. If you are looking for realism, D&D is not the best place to start.

 

[replicant2]

Yes. D&D, via hit points, also dramatically undervalues armor of all sorts. Why? Because D&D is designed to reflect fantasy movies and fiction, not reality. Movies are full of people who fight without helmets, shields, or, heck, even in chainmail bikinis or loin cloths. Realistic? No. Cool looking. Yup. If you are looking for realism, D&D is not the best place to start.

I'm in agreement with your premise that D&D does not model reality (and I'm not asking it to -- I like it for what it is and does). However, the mechanics do assign importance, via AC bonuses, to particular armor types. Chain is better than leather, plate better than chain, etc., so there is some degree of implied "realism." And given this fanciful scale, I'd like to see the shield get a little more respect.

 

[Crothian]

That's why we have feats. A shiled in a slightly trained hands is not that great, but someone like a spartan that is skilled in the shiled (ie with feats) really can take advantage of it.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

That's why we have feats. A shiled in a slightly trained hands is not that great, but someone like a spartan that is skilled in the shiled (ie with feats) really can take advantage of it.

Be nice if there were some decent shield feats, other than Phalanx Fighting.

I've an axe-and-board dwarf fighter in our Eberron game, and while she does have a consistently high AC, it'd be nice to get it higher.

Brad

 

[Imperialus]

look at the shield rules from the Game of Thrones.