Inverting the Shield and Armor bonuses

[Mok]

Just kind of wandering down a house rule that would aim to mostly reskin existing rules...

One thing that has always bugged me with D&D is that the shield has had a very low impact on the defense of a combatant.

Now, it is true that D&D's combat has always been abstract in nature, with both AC and hit points not really reflecting any specific blow by blow action and so the ratings for the various defensive values have to be taken as an overall measure of protection.

Still, the siren song of more visceral simulationism continues to sing to me after three decades. I don't want to monkey around with the overall math too much of the system, but there ought to be ways to reframe some of the values to nudge the system in different directions.

One of these ways would be to do some inversion of the shield and armor bonuses in the game. Rather than shields providing only a small defensive value, instead they would provide the "frontloaded" defensive value, and armor would take up the slack.

The basic idea is that within the game world, the shield would be the first thing that comes to mind in terms of providing defensive value. Armor would be the secondary and backup measure.

The basic idea would be for shields:

Double the Shield Bonus and Armor Check Penalty for Shields

Halve (round down) the Armor Bonus and Armor Check Penalties for Armor.

You could also add a bit more granularity, and triple the Shield bonus and Armor check penalties for Heavy Shields.

I put together a pdf with various charts to compare the numbers which you can find here.

[Lathiira]

Doubling the shield's AC bonus would only add 1-2 points of AC, while cutting the AC bonus of armor in half could reduce AC by 4 points for the heaviest armors.

[Rezdave]

I agree that shields need more "umph" but I think that ultimately body armor is more important. History certainly bears this out, and with the notable exception of many African cultures (due perhaps to reasons of limited technology, hot climate and/or requisite mobility), for the most part warriors have chosen body armor without shields rather than the reverse.

I do think it's fair to double Shield values, and thus TWD values as well.

HERE is what I did some time ago. It's worked out well.

HTH,

R.

[SlimGauge]

The OP's approach would make TWF much less viable.

I always felt that shields should be a more active defense than D&D allows, especially against missile fire (if the firer was in view of the target and the target is aware of the attack).

I once experimented with a set of house rules that
a) Doubled the value of a shield against missile fire as above
b) Allowed a character to expend an attack to add the BAB of that attack (only, no wpn/str mods) to his shield AC for the round IF he was using a shield.

I found that characters with interative attacks would trade one or the other for the extra shield boost, while characters with only one attack or no shield would fall back on the existing "fight defensively" rules.

[CaspianM]

Mok wrote:

Just kind of wandering down a house rule that would aim to mostly reskin existing rules...

One thing that has always bugged me with D&D is that the shield has had a very low impact on the defense of a combatant.

Shields stopped being a thing after full plate was introduced because 1 handed weapons weren't often able to penetrate, thus the move to two handed weapons.

Mechanically, there's is up to +7(or 9) AC to be had from a shield, that's not mechanically insignificant. Of course its rather expensive to get there.

[Kolokotroni]

There are alot of classes/builds that dont use sheilds. This would cripple the bulk of them. For that reason alone (flavor and historical references aside) I think this is a bad idea.

[Caineach]

If you are looking for a way of getting shields to have a higher bonus, take a look at the duelist. Their parrying ability could be molded to active shield use where you are blocking the opponents attacks, rather than just getting a bonus to AC.

[Mok]

Kolokotroni wrote:

There are alot of classes/builds that dont use sheilds. This would cripple the bulk of them. For that reason alone (flavor and historical references aside) I think this is a bad idea.

I guess in part that is the intent.

The idea I had is in part coming from trying to create a campaign that re-frames some of the major themes in the standard game.

Shields would be seen as a crucial item for defense, being it a lowly thug, to an armored knight. You might make a more specialized build, but the standard would be shield based.

The other element is that with shields prominent the iconography on them becomes a central theme. Shield crests would be an important campaign element.

It definitely skewers things, but I guess it isn't intended for a kitchen sink campaign.

[Charender]

I am messing around with a house rule for my next homebrew.

Light armor is -1 AC, but gains DR of 1/Adamantine.
Medium armor is -2 AC, but gains DR of 2/Adamantine.
Heavy armor is -3 AC, but gains DR of 3/Adamantine.
Adamantine armor doubles the DR of the armor and makes it DR of X/-

Full Plate would be AC of 6 with a DR of 3/Adm, thus armor is partly avoidance and partly damage reduction.

I hadn't thought about it, but doubling the AC of shield would fit nicely with this.

another option would be removing Chain Shirt, Breast plate, and Half Plate from the armor list, and drop the AC of Full Plate by 1. this is for people who believe you need armor to cover your entire body to be effective.

[Kolokotroni]

Mok wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

There are alot of classes/builds that dont use sheilds. This would cripple the bulk of them. For that reason alone (flavor and historical references aside) I think this is a bad idea.

I guess in part that is the intent.

The idea I had is in part coming from trying to create a campaign that re-frames some of the major themes in the standard game.

Shields would be seen as a crucial item for defense, being it a lowly thug, to an armored knight. You might make a more specialized build, but the standard would be shield based.

The other element is that with shields prominent the iconography on them becomes a central theme. Shield crests would be an important campaign element.

It definitely skewers things, but I guess it isn't intended for a kitchen sink campaign.

Kitchen sink? It removes rogues from the game, along with paladins and clerics who would like to be able to cast spells and fight in the same encounter. It heavily nerfs rangers, and any two weapon character without a shield in the mix, not to mention ALL 2handed characters. This is a huge portion of the game.

[Caineach]

Kolokotroni wrote:

Mok wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

There are alot of classes/builds that dont use sheilds. This would cripple the bulk of them. For that reason alone (flavor and historical references aside) I think this is a bad idea.

I guess in part that is the intent.

The idea I had is in part coming from trying to create a campaign that re-frames some of the major themes in the standard game.

Shields would be seen as a crucial item for defense, being it a lowly thug, to an armored knight. You might make a more specialized build, but the standard would be shield based.

The other element is that with shields prominent the iconography on them becomes a central theme. Shield crests would be an important campaign element.

It definitely skewers things, but I guess it isn't intended for a kitchen sink campaign.

Kitchen sink? It removes rogues from the game, along with paladins and clerics who would like to be able to cast spells and fight in the same encounter. It heavily nerfs rangers, and any two weapon character without a shield in the mix, not to mention ALL 2handed characters. This is a huge portion of the game.

It doesn't affect Clerics who want to use a light shield. You can cast with the free hand. As for the others, its intended to do exactly what you say. Reduce the prevalence of non-shield characters and promote defensive fighting styles that fit in an arthurian style setting. It doesn't affect rogues much, since they only get 3-4 AC from armor they would only lose a point or 2, if they decide to stick with 2WF and not pick up a buckler. 2H and 2WF get a nerf, but the change is intended to do exactly that.

[Mok]

Kolokotroni wrote:

Kitchen sink? It removes rogues from the game, along with paladins and clerics who would like to be able to cast spells and fight in the same encounter. It heavily nerfs rangers, and any two weapon character without a shield in the mix, not to mention ALL 2handed characters. This is a huge portion of the game.

Those are good points. I guess I thought you meant weird trip monkey builds and the like.

Those numbers are just kind of floating there though. I'm sure there is a way to nudge them so that they aren't completely nerfed. Still, nerfing doesn't mean useless per-se, it just means the dominant set up is sword and board, and if you want to do something outside of that then you need to make sure you're up to the task.

[Kolokotroni]

Mok wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Kitchen sink? It removes rogues from the game, along with paladins and clerics who would like to be able to cast spells and fight in the same encounter. It heavily nerfs rangers, and any two weapon character without a shield in the mix, not to mention ALL 2handed characters. This is a huge portion of the game.

Those are good points. I guess I thought you meant weird trip monkey builds and the like.

Those numbers are just kind of floating there though. I'm sure there is a way to nudge them so that they aren't completely nerfed. Still, nerfing doesn't mean useless per-se, it just means the dominant set up is sword and board, and if you want to do something outside of that then you need to make sure you're up to the task.

It does when it comes to set ups that are already weak on AC. Rogues have survivability issues to begin with, make them even easier to hit and they cant get into melee, which means little to no sneak attack. Its one thing to make sword and board the 'best' option, but what you suggest makes it the ONLY option. And everyone else stays FAR FAR away from combat.

[Kolokotroni]

Caineach wrote:

It doesn't affect Clerics who want to use a light shield. You can cast with the free hand. As for the others, its intended to do exactly what you say. Reduce the prevalence of non-shield characters and promote defensive fighting styles that fit in an arthurian style setting. It doesn't affect rogues much, since they only get 3-4 AC from armor they would only lose a point or 2, if they decide to stick with 2WF and not pick up a buckler. 2H and 2WF get a nerf, but the change is intended to do exactly that.

Its arguable whether a cleric can use a light shield, his hand can hold things, but it isnt 'free' as it cannot be used to weild a weapon for instance. So you are stuck with a buckler, but even then you are talking about half the major AC bonus (assuming the ratio of light shield to heavy sheild remains the same). Anyone with a light shield is going to be very easy to hit.

Rogues dont have sheild proficiencies, so thats a feat that has to be burned for a feat starved class. And just a couple of AC points make a BIG difference when you are already on the low end of the AC list. Rogues already lag in damage, if they burn a feat and give up 2 weapon fighting, they will be doing very very little.