Post/Author/DateTime	Post
robocade 01-13-05, 05:02 AM	do/should shields grant an dr bonus in a fashion similar to armor, or not at all? spells that grant an ac or natural armor bonus, do those get changed? If so, should spells that just grant dr be reduced in level (because damage reduction is much more common with the variant)
Grigori 01-13-05, 08:56 AM	No shields really shouldn't add DR, they're deflecting the attacks, not absorbing the blows the same way armor does. Check out the rules under combat (variant) on this site: www.wakinglands.com It has shields offering cover instead of just a bonus to AC. Spells should offer a deflection bonus unless they specifically state otherwise (i.e. Stoneskin).
robocade 01-13-05, 03:25 PM	mage armor grants an armor bonus, and a few other spell grant an armor bonus i think too.
Robbo 01-14-05, 04:17 AM	I would have thought that in normal combat an AC adjustment should be fine, although I've always thought that the normal +1 or +2 doesn't seem enough? I think I would be more confident with a shield than wearing leather armour... I also allow normal shields to provide some cover against certain energy and spell effects (although some like fireball would expand around the edges). One exception to shields giving AC might be against creatures or effects hitting with massive force - blocking a tail swipe from an ancient dragon would probably break your arm i.e. deal damage, though perhaps less than if you didn't have a shield and/or armour - which begins to sound awfully like damage reduction. Perhaps you could rule that shields give an AC adjustment, but if an attack is prevented by the shield (i.e. it would have hit if the shield had not been used) then a high DR is applied that would normally completely negate combat damage - I haven't thought about what amount it should be, but I suppose it should perhaps be lower than the maximum damage a blow from a charging lance could cause??? Perhaps try DR10 It might also only be relevant if the damage comes from bludgeoning force - though a large enough cutting or piercing weapon would presumably also cause some bludgeoning damage? After taking a certain amount of damage "through" the shield you could rule that the shield arm has become damaged to the extent that the shield can no longer be used effectively until healed. Another detail might be that the shield can only absorb so much damage before it shatters, even without sunder attacks...and a similar rule could apply to armour...hmmm...getting more realistic but much more complicated!
AaronXVI 01-16-05, 01:19 PM	I like the idea of shields granting cover, the only potential problems I see is the extra rolls bogging down the game. If it was house ruled to grant cover, some additional rules and feets would be good: Shield focus: Increases cover granted by shield Fighting defensively: Increases cover granted by shield