Are Shield Bosses Taken For Granted? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are Shield Bosses Taken For Granted? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
loaba
06-02-06, 06:21 PM When wielded as a weapon, a light shield does 1d3 damage and a heavy shield does 1d4 damage. You can up the damage die for each by adding a shield spike, but what about a shield boss?

Does the game automatically assume a shields base bashing damage comes from it already having a shield boss?

Historically, not every shield had one, but of course you could still smack someone in the face with your shield, or you could use the top edge to undercut someone. Obviously there were many ways to use a shield offensively. That's where, I think, the base damage die comes from.

I think you should be able to add a shield boss to either the light or heavy shields and it should have exactly the same effect as the shield spike, only a boss would deal bludgeoning damage rather than piercing.

Thoughts?
Tempest Stormwind
06-02-06, 06:58 PM I don't think the addition of a boss would change the damage of a shield bash significantly enough to alter the damage dealt. The damage from a "shield bash" comes from a sort of slam with it, and that behaves the same whether or not you have a boss on your shield (barring particularly elaborate or battle-designed bosses).

If your heart is set on having them do additional damage, though, I think you're on the right track with treating them as bludgeoning armor spikes.
loaba
06-02-06, 07:05 PM I don't think the addition of a boss would change the damage of a shield bash significantly enough to alter the damage dealt. The damage from a "shield bash" comes from a sort of slam with it, and that behaves the same whether or not you have a boss on your shield (barring particularly elaborate or battle-designed bosses).
Well, that's kind of my point; you can bash with any shield type other than a buckler, and while D&D artists typically depict shields as having rather prominent shield bosses, not all shields did have them.

So, are you saying the you feel that a boss doesn't really effect the amount of damage that a shield can do, when used a bludgeoning weapon? Or are you saying that the game takes the shield boss for granted and it's therefore included in the base damage die?

If your heart is set on having them do additional damage, though, I think you're on the right track with treating them as bludgeoning armor spikes.
Yeah, I think if I just say that you can buy either a boss or a spike for your shield, with each type dealing the appropriate damage modifier, than it's certainly not a game breaker.
Tempest Stormwind
06-02-06, 07:19 PM I'm saying that in a game where adding barbs to your blade doesn't alter the damage at all and where carving grooves in your javelins doesn't improve their accuracy (just the aesthetic description), a shield boss doesn't matter, and is strictly an element of description in the game.

Thus, it doesn't matter. A shield is a shield, and it can have a boss if you want it to. They'll be statted the same way anyway.

It isn't that a boss doesn't alter the damage of a shield bash in real life. It's that in D&D, the difference is insignificant.
loaba
06-02-06, 07:24 PM It isn't that a boss doesn't alter the damage of a shield bash in real life. It's that in D&D, the difference is insignificant.
Fair enough.

Then the next question is, which I think you've already answered, is whether or not allowing a shield boss to up the damage die, in the manner of a shield spike, is fair or not.

Come on guys, surely there are more than two opinions on this! :D
clarkvalentine
06-02-06, 07:48 PM I wouldn't worry about it. Assume that a character that uses shield bash on a regular basis outfits himself witn the right equipment for the job, and leave that sort of detail to fluff text on the character sheet.

If you really want to model it, I don't think assuming it adds +1 to damage but also adds +1 to armor check penalty would be terribly unbalancing.
loaba
06-02-06, 08:00 PM I wouldn't worry about it. Assume that a character that uses shield bash on a regular basis outfits himself witn the right equipment for the job, and leave that sort of detail to fluff text on the character sheet.
Well, the deal is that I am not so much interested in the fluff as I am in the crunch.

I guess you're saying that the game designers elected to use shield spikes as the only available means to up the damage die when using the shield bash maneuver; therefore they obviously felt that the shield boss was either strictly decorative or redundant.

Fair enough.
clarkvalentine
06-02-06, 08:25 PM ...therefore they obviously felt that the shield boss was either strictly decorative or redundant...

Or they didn't really think about it at all.
loaba
06-02-06, 09:07 PM Or they didn't really think about it at all.
Well, when I thought about it, it came to me that the sword & boarder is a time honored figure from both historical and fantasy literature. As such, I think this type of warrior got left out in the cold.

I'd like to make the classic shield fighter much more attractive to play.

One way to do that is to elevate the shield boss to a status that is on par with the shield spike. For the cost of a shield spike, let the player choose to up their bludgeoning damage potential.
clarkvalentine
06-02-06, 10:50 PM Well, when I thought about it, it came to me that the sword & boarder is a time honored figure from both historical and fantasy literature. As such, I think this type of warrior got left out in the cold. I'd like to make the classic shield fighter much more attractive to play.

Oh, no question about it. Sword-n-board tactics tend not to survive the first time the fighter drops the shield, two-hands the longsword, and gets an immense power attack damage bonus - it's hard to look back after that. In D&D, shields tend to only be good for hanging magic effects on.

One way to do that is to elevate the shield boss to a status that is on par with the shield spike. For the cost of a shield spike, let the player choose to up their bludgeoning damage potential.

If you were my player and I were your GM, I'd say "OK, you convinced me. Run with it." :)

Another way to make this work well is how A Game of Thrones d20 does it, where shield bonuses are much higher (and can add DR rather than AC, depending on circumstances). Shields are life in that game.
loaba
06-02-06, 11:04 PM Ya know, Armor as DR, from the UA, truley intrigues me. I'd very much like to try it out.

Back to the topic: how exactly does AGoT do it?
clarkvalentine
06-02-06, 11:09 PM Back to the topic: how exactly does AGoT do it?

In a nutshell, shields grant much higher bonuses to AC (+4 for a buckler up to +8 for a steel shield). If you attack someone with a shield, you must declare whether you want to try to bypass the shield (the target's shield adds to his AC) or try to go _through_ the shield (the shield's bonus becomes DR rather than AC).

It emulates the setting well, where 99% of knights and warriors carry shields.
zama202
06-02-06, 11:55 PM If you were my player and I were your GM, I'd say "OK, you convinced me. Run with it." :)

Agreed. You make a compelling case.

There are sooo many realistic things that are missing from D&D basically because you have to draw the line somewhere for playability. That leaves significant room for the GM and players to insert whatever elements are most important to them. Some people add rules for stringing bows, some change the way certain weapons work, and you can add shield bosses if you like. Making it equal to spikes but with bludgeoning damage sounds like a very good rule to me.

.z
loaba
06-03-06, 09:31 AM In a nutshell, shields grant much higher bonuses to AC (+4 for a buckler up to +8 for a steel shield). If you attack someone with a shield, you must declare whether you want to try to bypass the shield (the target's shield adds to his AC) or try to go _through_ the shield (the shield's bonus becomes DR rather than AC, which in turn would give player real pause when using the tactic).

It emulates the setting well, where 99% of knights and warriors carry shields.
Oh man, I like that alot. Is the Power Attack feat present in the AGoT setting? Reason I ask is, in D&D, Power Attack would be even more of a must in that situation. Of course, the 2-hander Power-Attacker would have a much lower AC, which should give the player real pause when considering whether or not to use this tactic.

There are sooo many realistic things that are missing from D&D basically because you have to draw the line somewhere for playability. That leaves significant room for the GM and players to insert whatever elements are most important to them. Some people add rules for stringing bows, some change the way certain weapons work, and you can add shield bosses if you like. Making it equal to spikes but with bludgeoning damage sounds like a very good rule to me.

.z
Yeah, and I'm not saying that I want to go for uber-realness either, I'm just trying to find ways to make the shield-fighter more attractive/playable.
Arganis
06-03-06, 11:34 AM To chime in on the earlier issue, I can see no mechanical problem with what basically amounts to "bludgeoning shield spikes". Or a wicked array of tangled, curved blades poking out of the shield that do slashing damage. It's a really minor point to change (weapon damage type), so go for it.
rogue_lettuce
06-03-06, 01:20 PM There are some feats out there [Ultimate Feats/etc] that make sword'n'board much more attractive, if you want to see your setting full of knights with shields, why not try giving everyone a free sword'n'board style feat [some increase the AC bonus, some increase shield slam damage, etc] and see whether that is enough of an incentive? It might convince the fighter, if no-one else, and the rogue if you allow some kind of feat where they attack from behind the shield to deal sneak attack damage with a bluff as a free action or something. :)
MarkB
06-03-06, 03:43 PM There are some feats out there [Ultimate Feats/etc] that make sword'n'board much more attractive, if you want to see your setting full of knights with shields, why not try giving everyone a free sword'n'board style feat [some increase the AC bonus, some increase shield slam damage, etc] and see whether that is enough of an incentive? It might convince the fighter, if no-one else, and the rogue if you allow some kind of feat where they attack from behind the shield to deal sneak attack damage with a bluff as a free action or something. :)
The PHBII has some nice feat chains to increase sword-&-shield effectiveness, and some of the Knight's class features are dependent upon using a shield.
loaba
06-04-06, 03:52 PM Thanks guys, I'll have to check out some of those Feat chains you're talking about. I'm also really intrigued by using a shield as either a straight AC bonus, or as DR.
clarkvalentine
06-04-06, 04:02 PM Oh man, I like that alot. Is the Power Attack feat present in the AGoT setting?

Yeah, it's in there. There's some really cool combat variants in there, actually. I love it.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
loaba 06-02-06, 06:21 PM	When wielded as a weapon, a light shield does 1d3 damage and a heavy shield does 1d4 damage. You can up the damage die for each by adding a shield spike, but what about a shield boss? Does the game automatically assume a shields base bashing damage comes from it already having a shield boss? Historically, not every shield had one, but of course you could still smack someone in the face with your shield, or you could use the top edge to undercut someone. Obviously there were many ways to use a shield offensively. That's where, I think, the base damage die comes from. I think you should be able to add a shield boss to either the light or heavy shields and it should have exactly the same effect as the shield spike, only a boss would deal bludgeoning damage rather than piercing. Thoughts?
Tempest Stormwind 06-02-06, 06:58 PM	I don't think the addition of a boss would change the damage of a shield bash significantly enough to alter the damage dealt. The damage from a "shield bash" comes from a sort of slam with it, and that behaves the same whether or not you have a boss on your shield (barring particularly elaborate or battle-designed bosses). If your heart is set on having them do additional damage, though, I think you're on the right track with treating them as bludgeoning armor spikes.
loaba 06-02-06, 07:05 PM	I don't think the addition of a boss would change the damage of a shield bash significantly enough to alter the damage dealt. The damage from a "shield bash" comes from a sort of slam with it, and that behaves the same whether or not you have a boss on your shield (barring particularly elaborate or battle-designed bosses). Well, that's kind of my point; you can bash with any shield type other than a buckler, and while D&D artists typically depict shields as having rather prominent shield bosses, not all shields did have them. So, are you saying the you feel that a boss doesn't really effect the amount of damage that a shield can do, when used a bludgeoning weapon? Or are you saying that the game takes the shield boss for granted and it's therefore included in the base damage die? If your heart is set on having them do additional damage, though, I think you're on the right track with treating them as bludgeoning armor spikes. Yeah, I think if I just say that you can buy either a boss or a spike for your shield, with each type dealing the appropriate damage modifier, than it's certainly not a game breaker.
Tempest Stormwind 06-02-06, 07:19 PM	I'm saying that in a game where adding barbs to your blade doesn't alter the damage at all and where carving grooves in your javelins doesn't improve their accuracy (just the aesthetic description), a shield boss doesn't matter, and is strictly an element of description in the game. Thus, it doesn't matter. A shield is a shield, and it can have a boss if you want it to. They'll be statted the same way anyway. It isn't that a boss doesn't alter the damage of a shield bash in real life. It's that in D&D, the difference is insignificant.
loaba 06-02-06, 07:24 PM	It isn't that a boss doesn't alter the damage of a shield bash in real life. It's that in D&D, the difference is insignificant. Fair enough. Then the next question is, which I think you've already answered, is whether or not allowing a shield boss to up the damage die, in the manner of a shield spike, is fair or not. Come on guys, surely there are more than two opinions on this! :D
clarkvalentine 06-02-06, 07:48 PM	I wouldn't worry about it. Assume that a character that uses shield bash on a regular basis outfits himself witn the right equipment for the job, and leave that sort of detail to fluff text on the character sheet. If you really want to model it, I don't think assuming it adds +1 to damage but also adds +1 to armor check penalty would be terribly unbalancing.
loaba 06-02-06, 08:00 PM	I wouldn't worry about it. Assume that a character that uses shield bash on a regular basis outfits himself witn the right equipment for the job, and leave that sort of detail to fluff text on the character sheet. Well, the deal is that I am not so much interested in the fluff as I am in the crunch. I guess you're saying that the game designers elected to use shield spikes as the only available means to up the damage die when using the shield bash maneuver; therefore they obviously felt that the shield boss was either strictly decorative or redundant. Fair enough.
clarkvalentine 06-02-06, 08:25 PM	...therefore they obviously felt that the shield boss was either strictly decorative or redundant... Or they didn't really think about it at all.
loaba 06-02-06, 09:07 PM	Or they didn't really think about it at all. Well, when I thought about it, it came to me that the sword & boarder is a time honored figure from both historical and fantasy literature. As such, I think this type of warrior got left out in the cold. I'd like to make the classic shield fighter much more attractive to play. One way to do that is to elevate the shield boss to a status that is on par with the shield spike. For the cost of a shield spike, let the player choose to up their bludgeoning damage potential.
clarkvalentine 06-02-06, 10:50 PM	Well, when I thought about it, it came to me that the sword & boarder is a time honored figure from both historical and fantasy literature. As such, I think this type of warrior got left out in the cold. I'd like to make the classic shield fighter much more attractive to play. Oh, no question about it. Sword-n-board tactics tend not to survive the first time the fighter drops the shield, two-hands the longsword, and gets an immense power attack damage bonus - it's hard to look back after that. In D&D, shields tend to only be good for hanging magic effects on. One way to do that is to elevate the shield boss to a status that is on par with the shield spike. For the cost of a shield spike, let the player choose to up their bludgeoning damage potential. If you were my player and I were your GM, I'd say "OK, you convinced me. Run with it." :) Another way to make this work well is how A Game of Thrones d20 does it, where shield bonuses are much higher (and can add DR rather than AC, depending on circumstances). Shields are life in that game.
loaba 06-02-06, 11:04 PM	Ya know, Armor as DR, from the UA, truley intrigues me. I'd very much like to try it out. Back to the topic: how exactly does AGoT do it?
clarkvalentine 06-02-06, 11:09 PM	Back to the topic: how exactly does AGoT do it? In a nutshell, shields grant much higher bonuses to AC (+4 for a buckler up to +8 for a steel shield). If you attack someone with a shield, you must declare whether you want to try to bypass the shield (the target's shield adds to his AC) or try to go _through_ the shield (the shield's bonus becomes DR rather than AC). It emulates the setting well, where 99% of knights and warriors carry shields.
zama202 06-02-06, 11:55 PM	If you were my player and I were your GM, I'd say "OK, you convinced me. Run with it." :) Agreed. You make a compelling case. There are sooo many realistic things that are missing from D&D basically because you have to draw the line somewhere for playability. That leaves significant room for the GM and players to insert whatever elements are most important to them. Some people add rules for stringing bows, some change the way certain weapons work, and you can add shield bosses if you like. Making it equal to spikes but with bludgeoning damage sounds like a very good rule to me. .z
loaba 06-03-06, 09:31 AM	In a nutshell, shields grant much higher bonuses to AC (+4 for a buckler up to +8 for a steel shield). If you attack someone with a shield, you must declare whether you want to try to bypass the shield (the target's shield adds to his AC) or try to go _through_ the shield (the shield's bonus becomes DR rather than AC, which in turn would give player real pause when using the tactic). It emulates the setting well, where 99% of knights and warriors carry shields. Oh man, I like that alot. Is the Power Attack feat present in the AGoT setting? Reason I ask is, in D&D, Power Attack would be even more of a must in that situation. Of course, the 2-hander Power-Attacker would have a much lower AC, which should give the player real pause when considering whether or not to use this tactic. There are sooo many realistic things that are missing from D&D basically because you have to draw the line somewhere for playability. That leaves significant room for the GM and players to insert whatever elements are most important to them. Some people add rules for stringing bows, some change the way certain weapons work, and you can add shield bosses if you like. Making it equal to spikes but with bludgeoning damage sounds like a very good rule to me. .z Yeah, and I'm not saying that I want to go for uber-realness either, I'm just trying to find ways to make the shield-fighter more attractive/playable.
Arganis 06-03-06, 11:34 AM	To chime in on the earlier issue, I can see no mechanical problem with what basically amounts to "bludgeoning shield spikes". Or a wicked array of tangled, curved blades poking out of the shield that do slashing damage. It's a really minor point to change (weapon damage type), so go for it.
rogue_lettuce 06-03-06, 01:20 PM	There are some feats out there [Ultimate Feats/etc] that make sword'n'board much more attractive, if you want to see your setting full of knights with shields, why not try giving everyone a free sword'n'board style feat [some increase the AC bonus, some increase shield slam damage, etc] and see whether that is enough of an incentive? It might convince the fighter, if no-one else, and the rogue if you allow some kind of feat where they attack from behind the shield to deal sneak attack damage with a bluff as a free action or something. :)
MarkB 06-03-06, 03:43 PM	There are some feats out there [Ultimate Feats/etc] that make sword'n'board much more attractive, if you want to see your setting full of knights with shields, why not try giving everyone a free sword'n'board style feat [some increase the AC bonus, some increase shield slam damage, etc] and see whether that is enough of an incentive? It might convince the fighter, if no-one else, and the rogue if you allow some kind of feat where they attack from behind the shield to deal sneak attack damage with a bluff as a free action or something. :) The PHBII has some nice feat chains to increase sword-&-shield effectiveness, and some of the Knight's class features are dependent upon using a shield.
loaba 06-04-06, 03:52 PM	Thanks guys, I'll have to check out some of those Feat chains you're talking about. I'm also really intrigued by using a shield as either a straight AC bonus, or as DR.
clarkvalentine 06-04-06, 04:02 PM	Oh man, I like that alot. Is the Power Attack feat present in the AGoT setting? Yeah, it's in there. There's some really cool combat variants in there, actually. I love it.