why do shields suck so much?

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:26 am

Question: I am attacking you with a baseball bat in a locked room. you must survive for 10 minutes and you have the following options for defense

a chain mail shirt or a shield which one do you choose?

If you are smart I would think you would choose the shield and it would not even be close. yet in D&D the chain shirt is basically 4x more valuable.

Shouldn't the shield A.C bonus be something like +3 for medium shields + 5 for large shields? or perhaps something that scales with BAB? damage reduction?

I mean the Spartans were as bad ass as you could get and what did they use? a big shield!

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:30 am

Their awesomeness came from spears. Also, AC is irrelevant. So, surviving 10 minutes means 1-3 rounding you then chilling the other 97-99.

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:38 am

Shouldn't shields be relevant? I haven't actually been in any sort of combat involving swords and the like but as I imagine it in my head, having a shield would seem to be a nice advantage.

"AC is irrelevant" I'm assuming you are meaning that once certain levels are reached armor class becomes irrelevant to the success of combat? Is this correct? I have not played any high level stuff, (basically 1 -10).

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:42 am

I did like the MERPS idea of having armor simply protect certain hit locations from different types of attacks rather than simply boosting AC (and I think only shields made you harder to hit).

The AC bonuses from armor and shields are entirely gameplay conceits and have nothing to do with what actually works.

Manxome · Post by **Manxome** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:50 am

If you want your game to support dudes that use shields and dudes that don't use shields, then the benefit from a shield needs to be in some way comparable to the benefit of whatever the other options are (traditionally, 2H weapons or dual-wielding). In a game where attackers get to choose who they target and combat tends towards rocket launcher tag, that's hard to pull off.

Simultaneously, if you want the game to support both shield-users and non-shield-users, then the AC bonus from using a shield can't be allowed to push people off the RNG. If a large shield gives you +5 AC and you can get it enchanted for another +5, then picking up a shield means that someone who previously hit you half the time can now only hit you on a natural 20. That seems unlikely to be good for the game.

I'm sure some people will make the argument that AC in high-level D&D just determines how much power attack you can use. The brokenness of D&D is manifold.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:04 am

Spaghetti Western wrote:Shouldn't shields be relevant? I haven't actually been in any sort of combat involving swords and the like but as I imagine it in my head, having a shield would seem to be a nice advantage.

"AC is irrelevant" I'm assuming you are meaning that once certain levels are reached armor class becomes irrelevant to the success of combat? Is this correct? I have not played any high level stuff, (basically 1 -10).

Beyond level 5 getting hit by AC stuff at or near 95% is the norm. Especially since you're struggling for offensive viability as is without losing more.

In every game where shields matter they boost evade, not defense. See: FF2, FF6, Diablo, D2, Titan Quest...

Also in at least most of those cases they help vs spells as well (mevade, ele resists, etc).

Evade type things are why casters win.

So if you don't want shields made of Fail, make them have a flat evade rate like displacement and boost saves.

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:07 am

I did a quick EV of successful attack comparing a few options

1) attacker with str bonus of +2 and 1 handed 1d10 weapon
EV of successful attack = 7.5 (75/100)

2) same attacker (str bonus is now x1.5) with 2 handed 2d16 weapon
EV of successful attack = 10 (110/11)

So a shield bonus should be something like 2 or 3 perhaps depending on whether its light or heavy?

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:09 am

Roy,

"
So if you don't want shields made of Fail, make them have a flat evade rate like displacement and boost saves"

I like this idea. It would especially seem to give more options for better shields beyond making them +x

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:16 am

I ... I actually agree with Roy wholeheartedly. He is incredibly right and that is an effective way to view shields. I must ask has Roy any write ups on which shields give what evasion percentage?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:17 am

Spaghetti Western wrote: I mean the Spartans were as bad ass as you could get and what did they use? a big shield!

They also lost.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:24 am

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:25 am

Large: 35%?

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:44 am

I'm all for just getting rid of "bucklers" because AFAIK there's actually no such thing as a freakin' little shield you strap onto your arm such that your hand is free for a weapon. Real bucklers aren't even remotely like that. The small shield is the buckler. Then there's the large shield, then the tower.

And before someone chimes in and says something about realism, you can STFU. Of course we want unrealistic things in fantasy. However, it would be nicer if the unrealistic parts were cool things, like manticores, instead of retarded things, like dire flails. And having someone strap a "buckler" on while fighting with a two handed weapon seems to fall into that category of giant frog.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:48 am

I'm going to chime in with some realism anyway. Realistically I agree with you. A buckler would probably be more like an arm guard in usefulness which I'd just count as part of armor. But for the sake of the 10% I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it. (I really haven't seen anyone use a buckler anyway)

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:49 am

In Dungeon Crawl, shields give evasion chance on top of your usual Dodge and Armor.

It's low, and while using bigger shields does increase the odds slightly, it also proportionately gives you a greater chance of getting the message "Your shield got in the way of your attack" sometimes.
With a slow and heavy weapon, the protection is nice but your (already infrequent) occasionally missed attacks can be dangerous to your health.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 am

MGuy wrote:I'm going to chime in with some realism anyway. Realistically I agree with you. A buckler would probably be more like an arm guard in usefulness which I'd just count as part of armor. But for the sake of the 10% I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it. (I really haven't seen anyone use a buckler anyway)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkNIm8V1znU&feature=fvw

Note that you do NOT fucking have a free hand with a buckler.

That is just some giant frog bullshit on the order of a "dire" flail.

And you know what? These exotic weapons are completely mind-boggling to me not just because they're stupid, but because of the extraordinary rapidity with which D&D's creators apparently resorted to these to fill the "exotic" slots when REAL weapons offer such an incredible versatility of exotic weapons, ranging from hook swords to atatls to a wind and fire wheel to the utter WTF of a lantern shield. I mean you could easily pull up a good hundred exotic weapons without much effort that actually existed and are way cooler than dire fails.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:03 am

Anyways, there are a few routes to making shields better. The evasion idea is actually a decent route, and certainly has a lot of parity with existing games.

Other things...

-Shields should give you freaking Touch AC (if not just the straight out evasion). I mean seriously, why is this not already the default?
-Shields need to help you block things like dragonbreath and fireballs. Seriously, why the fuck do knights in shining armor not get to block dragonbreath with their shields?
-Shield style fighters (or at least larger shields) should be especially good against ranged attacks. One idea I had for the "shield tank fighter" in general was that they would be slower, but very effective in the way of getting in front of allies to protect them, like a reactive and mobile WALL, and that it would be very difficult to hurt them with range, thus naturally encouraging enemies to close in. Making range penalties a bit more pronounced (particularly for the spellcasters who don't GET any, another thing they get over mundane archers) might help this further.
-Actually good powers related to the sword and board style, rather than all the nifty things favoring another style. These would be things like Cover, Mortal Shield, Argent Bastion, Knight's Move, Shield Charge, and so forth.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:04 am

Yeah, nobody would buy someone who had both a shield strapped to their arm and a free hand on that arm. That's just Silly

I mean, who'd possibly want any part of a setting with characters like that in it.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:11 am

Touch AC... what a mistake that is.

There should be 2 kinds of passive defense:

Soak damage (Armor)
Avoid it entirely (Dodge)

Shields would allow an exchange of some kind of minor action each turn to increase one or the other.
A reactive counter attempt would negate an attack entirely, be it magic, ranged, or melee, but with about 25 to 50% failure.
A "botch" shield roll placed in line of an attack, or critical hit from incoming attack, would risk destroying it; otherwise, no HP or integrity of the shield item to keep track of.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:13 am

sigma999 wrote:Touch AC... what a mistake that is.

There should be 2 kinds of passive defense:

Soak damage (Armor)
Avoid it entirely (Dodge)

Shields would allow an exchange of some kind of minor action each turn to increase one or the other.
A reactive counter attempt would negate an attack entirely, be it magic, ranged, or melee, but with about 25 to 50% failure.
A "botch" shield roll placed in line of an attack, or critical hit from incoming attack, would risk destroying it; otherwise, no HP or integrity of the shield item to keep track of.

Okay, so then we're not talking about a remotely D&D-like system anymore. How does this system of dodge/soak work exactly?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:20 am

Caedrus wrote: Okay, so then we're not talking about a remotely D&D-like system anymore. How does this system of dodge/soak work exactly?

I was rambling about idealist RPGs in general, aren't we allowed that grace?
Frank and Keith do it often...

Regardless, dodge would be AC as usual... but more specifically, it's the equivalent of Touch AC.
Touch AC only.
You hit or you don't.

Armor would shift to Damage Reduction, the same as various D&D monsters have, but only penetrated by non-physical attacks.
The base amount of DR would be Constitution bonus; armor items add to Armor value.
Others such as Charisma or Wisdom bonus would add to Mind Armor, only good against spells and nonphysical attacks, but noncasters (beings that don't have any SLAs or slots) could get some kind of free Immediate Action natural defense to add more to Mind Armor.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:08 am

Caedrus wrote:wind and fire wheel

Please do explain.

Also, I love how the WotC boards used to complain that nothing like the spiked chain could ever have existed, ignoring the Meteor Hammer, which was basically a bludgeoning version of the Spiked Chain. Or the Russian knout, which was basically a whip that dealt real damage, even if you're armoured.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:36 am

Koumei wrote:
Caedrus wrote:wind and fire wheel
Please do explain.

Koumei wrote: Also, I love how the WotC boards used to complain that nothing like the spiked chain could ever have existed, ignoring the Meteor Hammer, which was basically a bludgeoning version of the Spiked Chain. Or the Russian knout, which was basically a whip that dealt real damage, even if you're armoured.

Meteor Hammer:

You've got to admit though Koumei, many of the spiked chain images were whack. Same goes for many of the double sword pictures. I mean you could easily draw a double sword that would seem sensible, but WotC's artists just... didn't...

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:39 am

Ideas so far

Roy: evasion/ a miss chance for successful attacks ; ubernoob 10% 20% 50% (Mcguy 35% - large) progression

ubernoob - opposing attack "nullify" roll for missed twf attacks

Caedrus - touch attack AC bonus, protection from ranged attacks, shield & weapon powers similar to those available with other fighting styles

sigma - adding a damage reduction system.

which are these are most feasible? easiest to manage? not likely to become unbalanced while still being useful?

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:45 am

Spaghetti, any solution that is to be balanced must be taken thoroughly in the context of a given system as a whole. And of course with all of those the specifics of implementation are crucial.

With this in mind, I like to think of it not in terms of "fixing shields" so much as "Creating a balanced weapon styles system."

Weapon styles being things like "reach, 1HW and board, two weapon fighting, two handed weapon fighting, fisticuffs, throwing weapons, crossbows, bows, light weapons, one-handed weapons, double weapons, improvised weapons."

And then that delineates even further into the smaller varieties within each of those choices.

Ideally, you want to have these various weapon styles be balanced, but you also want them to have unique enough styles from each other in order to differentiate characters, or else they might as well just be flavor text instead of rules. And weapon choice as flavor text isn't necessarily a bad route to go either, it's just not presumably the one you want to take.

The Gaming Den

why do shields suck so much?

why do shields suck so much?

Re: why do shields suck so much?