Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Buron 08-06-07, 11:09 AM	Do you need to be actively using the shield, or it is good enough that you're holding it in your hand to recieve its AC bonus? Does the bonus remain when you're caught flat-footed? or when somebody attacks you from behind while you're facing another opponent?:confused: Thank you.
TwiddleStootch 08-06-07, 11:23 AM	Do you need to be actively using the shield, or it is good enough that you're holding it in your hand to recieve its AC bonus? If you are holding a Shield, you are actively using it, unless you declare otherwise :D Does the bonus remain when you're caught flat-footed? or when somebody attacks you from behind while you're facing another opponent?:confused: Thank you. Your shield still works while flat-footed, and there is no 'facing' in DnD, so if your are between two opponents all that happens is that they gain a +2 flanking bonus on attack rolls.
orionm42 08-06-07, 11:25 AM	Do you need to be actively using the shield, or it is good enough that you're holding it in your hand to recieve its AC bonus? It is good enough just to hold it. Does the bonus remain when you're caught flat-footed? Yes. A character loses only his Dexterity bonus when flat footed, not the bonus provided by the shield. or when somebody attacks you from behind while you're facing another opponent?:confused: In DnD, there is no facing for characters who are able to move because they are assumed to be constantly moving in battle. Hope that helps. :) Edit: TwiddleStootch beat me to it!!
Krusk 08-07-07, 01:36 PM	If you really need to use facing rules, they are in the book unearthed arcana as a variant rule. But as it stands the people above me got it.
weasel0 08-07-07, 10:03 PM	Because taking full cover behind a tower sheild gives you 360 protection... :p WTF for the win WotC
Mock26 08-07-07, 10:24 PM	Does the bonus remain....when somebody attacks you from behind while you're facing another opponent?:confused: Thank you. A shield's bonus to your AC applies in a complete 360-degree circle around the person using it, even againts opponents attacking your rear. It is extremely unrealistic, but it is easy (assuming of course, you can't look at the minis and tell who is in front of your mini or to the side of your mini).
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 01:46 AM	A shield's bonus to your AC applies in a complete 360-degree circle around the person using it, even againts opponents attacking your rear. It is extremely unrealistic, but it is easy (assuming of course, you can't look at the minis and tell who is in front of your mini or to the side of your mini). That's because D&D doesn't provide easy access to a creature's rear because facing rules were dropped. And it's not unrealistic either. Creatures are always moving around in their space during combat. It's highly unrealistic that someone in combat will show its back to another creature; this happens when a creature is flanked.
Salla 08-08-07, 01:49 AM	That's because D&D doesn't provide easy access to a creature's rear because facing rules were dropped. And it's not unrealistic either. Creatures are always moving around in their space during combat. It's highly unrealistic that someone in combat will show its back to another creature; this happens when a creature is flanked. WIN.
Mock26 08-08-07, 04:59 PM	That's because D&D doesn't provide easy access to a creature's rear because facing rules were dropped. And it's not unrealistic either. Creatures are always moving around in their space during combat. It's highly unrealistic that someone in combat will show its back to another creature; this happens when a creature is flanked. Not unrealistic? Then why did countless medieval engineers design defenses for castles and fortifications to take into consideration the fact that the shield was almost always carried on the left arm and that soldiers were therefore more vulnerable on their right side?
Marcus Majarra 08-08-07, 06:56 PM	Not unrealistic? Then why did countless medieval engineers design defenses for castles and fortifications to take into consideration the fact that the shield was almost always carried on the left arm and that soldiers were therefore more vulnerable on their right side? Such as?
Rustmonster 08-08-07, 07:00 PM	Not unrealistic? Then why did countless medieval engineers design defenses for castles and fortifications to take into consideration the fact that the shield was almost always carried on the left arm and that soldiers were therefore more vulnerable on their right side? That's reality, which doesn't aply in D&D. You lose. That's like saying while playing Risk: "Hey, you can't attack that place left of your territory! You got that territory from the right, and in 19xx, blah blah blah crossed at blah blah blah and didn't make it, so you couldn't move far enough to attack!"
LordDewtain 08-08-07, 07:12 PM	Such as? the spiral staircases almost always spiraled in one direction (clockwise I think). So that the defending knight (who is assumed to come from above) can swing his sword freely, while the attacking knight (coming from below) would hit his sword on the center post of the staircase that was in the way. ok, so its not designed for shields, but it was for handedness.
Mock26 08-08-07, 07:37 PM	Such as? Akershus (sp?) Castle in Oslo is a perfect example. If the attackers were able to force their way through the outer gate they were forced to travel to the left between two walls. This would allows the archers on the inner wall to fire their arrows into the right side of the attackers, the side that did NOT have their shields. That is one example that comes directly to mind. Do some reading on castles, look at their layout, and you will see this is quite a common feature. ======================================== ====================== That's reality, which doesn't aply in D&D. You lose. That's like saying while playing Risk: "Hey, you can't attack that place left of your territory! You got that territory from the right, and in 19xx, blah blah blah crossed at blah blah blah and didn't make it, so you couldn't move far enough to attack!" Actually, you lose for failing to read the entire thread. In my first post in this thread I described that in D&D you get 360-degree shield protection, and I simply added that it was unrealistic. And, it is. I didn't say that you couldn't or shouldn't use the shield rules as they apply to the game. Nor did I say that they should be changed or that it was broken or anything along those lines. The only thing negative I said was a simple comment that it was unrealistic. I know that this is an aside, but the D&D shield rules ARE unrealistic. If a warrior with a shield was fighting hand-to-hand against an opponent in front of him and tried to move that shield around behind him to defend against an archer he'd be opening himself up to some major attacks by that person in front of them. If you are fighting for your life against someone in front of you that person will have most if not all of your attention at that time. True, you will probably notice things in your periferal vision, but you will primarily be focused on that person behind you. If you array several warriors in front of the same warrior he couldn't use his shield against the guy all the way to the right (assuming he is right handed and the shield is on his left arm) without making himself vulnerable to the guy all the way on the left. You should go and check out any of the numerous SCA and boffer-weapon "leagues" that are out there. Even though they are a modern creation these people are the closest you can come to finding people who practice the art of medeival warfare. Watch them fight. Watch them and you will see that the shield is only really effective against 1 or 2 opponents. It doesn't take much logic to look at how the shield is worn, how people fight, and to see that the shield is not the super defensive item that the rules make it out to be. Again, this is not an attack on the shield rules! The shield rules were, in my opinion, made as simple as possible (for whatever reason) for the purpose of ease of play. The rules work well within the game for which they were written. I am not arguing against that. I am merely stating that I think that they are unrealistic. And, before anyone says anything, "Yes. I am fully aware that this is a fantasy game. But, I also think that it is a fantasy game that is grounded in and based on reality. After all, all the real world laws (of physics and such) apply in this fantasy world (but with the caveat that certain people can bend or alter those laws). I know it is a fantasy game. I just like a healthy dose of realism in the game to help make it seem more realistic to me, and thus enabling me to enjoy it more.
orionm42 08-09-07, 10:00 AM	...I simply added that it was unrealistic. And, it is. It isn't. You are failing to account for one simple fact in your analysis. In DnD, just as in real life, a shield does not eliminate your chances of being hit from “behind.” It reduces that chance by a certain percentage versus fighting without one. Consider a non-magical heavy wooden shield. It grants you an AC bonus of 2. In other words it reduces your chance of being hit by 10% (before modifiers of course). As Marcus already noted, individuals are constantly moving in battle. If they are actively wielding a shield, it is perfectly "realistic" to assume they will block a few more potential strikes than someone who isn't using one. In other words, if there is a battle raging all around an individual, and he is physically able to react to the fighting, a PC carrying a shield has a slightly better chance of blocking an attack from behind than someone without the added protection. In fact, he has a slightly better chance of blocking any attack directed against him. That is just common sense and it is why people carry shields to begin with.
weasel0 08-09-07, 05:36 PM	In other words, if there is a battle raging all around an individual, and he is physically able to react to the fighting, a PC carrying a shield has a slightly better chance of blocking an attack from behind than someone without the added protection.Except that unlike the battlemat, a person doesn't have the 360 degree vision to do that.
Mock26 08-09-07, 07:29 PM	It isn't. You are failing to account for one simple fact in your analysis. In DnD, just as in real life, a shield does not eliminate your chances of being hit from “behind.” It reduces that chance by a certain percentage versus fighting without one. Consider a non-magical heavy wooden shield. It grants you an AC bonus of 2. In other words it reduces your chance of being hit by 10% (before modifiers of course). As Marcus already noted, individuals are constantly moving in battle. If they are actively wielding a shield, it is perfectly "realistic" to assume they will block a few more potential strikes than someone who isn't using one. In other words, if there is a battle raging all around an individual, and he is physically able to react to the fighting, a PC carrying a shield has a slightly better chance of blocking an attack from behind than someone without the added protection. In fact, he has a slightly better chance of blocking any attack directed against him. That is just common sense and it is why people carry shields to begin with. D&D also assumes that the person who is engaged in combat for his life (which does require more than just a tiny bit of concentration) is somehow mystically aware of some archer behind him, possibly a hundred or more yards away. Also, I never said that a shield would eliminate the chance of being hit from behind. But, given the size of the shield and the fact that you have to actually move the shield around to block various blows it is only effective against a finite number of people. So, if you are fighting someone in front of you and if you swing that shield around to block an arrow being fired at your back (and this would actually entail having to at least partly turn your body around) you are leaving yourself wide open to the person in front of you. The shield cannot block against both at the same time. And, to add on to what weasel0 said, have you ever worn a helmet? They severely restrict your vision. I understand that no everyone wore a helmet and that there were a lot of different styles, but for knights at least they have an extremely limited and narrow field of vision when they were wearing their helmets and had their visor down. Even with the visor up their field of vision was restricted to a certain degree.
Pegasos989 08-11-07, 07:35 AM	D&D also assumes that the person who is engaged in combat for his life (which does require more than just a tiny bit of concentration) is somehow mystically aware of some archer behind him, possibly a hundred or more yards away. Please quote the part of the rulebooks that says so. Or did you mean "I as the DM assume..."? Quite the contrary, many books suggest marking large units of troops as just a general mass of people (such as directing crows in diplomacy)/unit(heroes of battle) instead of marking every character as a single mark. So DnD assumes that if there is an unit of 50 archers 200 yards behind you, you know such an unit is there. However, were there only a single character and PC was in combat, I would propably require DC -5 spot check, modified by -5 because of being distracted and then the -1 per 10 feet... Nowhere in the rules does it say anything against that, in fact spot even says "hidden or hard to notice" so... If something is hard to notice, it requires a spot check.
Netak 08-12-07, 12:54 PM	Well. When Aragorn fights a whole bunch of orcs he stap the one In front of him. Make a 180 spin an slam the next down, and that way he goes on. Black Mamba (Kill Bill) also turn in all kinds of directions when fighting. Stap the one in front of you. Then trun around and slap the next and while you are on it why should you not take the one to your left. In D&D a action is about 6 sec long, and that is a little time. And these 6 sec is also considered: Make 1 attack and then move. A attack against the one in front of you actually only takes about 2 sec and therefor I see no reason why you in the theory couldn't use the last 4 seconds on turning to be ready to the next attack behind you. And a last thing. When you stick a sword trought or in and human he actually wouldn't be in any position to fight back. In real life you only got like 3-5 hit points when getting slashd by a sword. There are so many unrealistic things about the rules. Thanks:)