True. But as the original post was about the possibility of using a shield and two-handed weapon, your point is more geared towards that person than to me.
Because explaining/defending them is of no interest to me.
In reality, this is a throw back to 1ed edition. But instead of attackers, it was a set number of attacks. So an opponent with 3 attacks could ignore shield AC on a medium shield on his 3rd attack. The logic behind this was that at some point, a skilled attacker could move the shield aside and could have a chance to land a telling blow. A lot of people were not aware of this rule in 1983... When I did it in a tournament, one of the player screamed unfair. But it was fair.
Your shield variations are good. But personnaly, I would add the additionnal AC against missile fire only. These shield were known for stopping arrows but were realtively awkward in melee. For pure melee, the small an medium shield type were prefered. But the large shield was also often used from horse back as it was light enough to manoeuver and help protect the mount too. The tower shield (pavise) was almost exclusively used by infantry. I think I have seen a depiction of a pavise used from horseback but I don't remember where...
Thanks. We just wanted to keep the AC bonus as simple as possible but if you wanted a more complex system there is nothing wrong with it. Since the other shields require their own proficiency (Heavy Shields), we found it appropriate. FWIW, only Fighters began with Heavy Shield proficiency. Other classes had to get it from Shield Master or Heavily Armored IIRC--- we haven't used them for nearly 6 months though.
There is poetry in the KISS method. But why limit proficiency to only fighters? Why not paly? As they are usually (in litterature) the epitome of shield users...
Ugh! You're killing me here, Helldritch. Did you read my posts about not really caring to discuss a house-rule I don't even use anymore? Sigh...
Logical. I better understand your stand on this one. And I agree. Would allow the kite shield but not the pavise as the latter was more of an infantry thing anyways. But your point is good and logical. Class balance should take precedence. Thank you.Ugh! You're killing me here, Helldritch. Did you read my posts about not really caring to discuss a house-rule I don't even use anymore? Sigh...
Ok, fine, but this is it, ok?
Fighters are the epitome of Fighting, and have all weapon and armor proficiencies. Paladins are the only other class that (by default) gets Heavy Armor (yes, many Cleric subclasses do as well...) but we denied them Heavy Shields because you don't see ranks of Paladins in formation with kite or tower shields IMO, and it gives Fighters that "something extra" that no other class gets by default. The Paladins that are good with Shields, usually take Shield Master and so pick up Heavy Shields that way if that is their focus. So, in a nutshell, partly flavor, partly class balance more or less.
