RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to Community Chat

05:37, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields.

Posted by Killer Rabbitt
horus
member, 251 posts
Wayfarer of the
Western Wastes
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 15:26
  • msg #10

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

If we're going to get down into the fiddly bits on this, consider how a shield worn on the back might affect:

  • The fighter's equilibrium - a larger shield worn on the back might overbalance the fighter at a crucial moment (such as being attacked from the front?)
  • The fighter's agility/dexterity (constraining the armored arms of the fighter by catching on the edges of said shield)
  • Aerodynamic effects of such a shield in a strong wind or against a breath weapon?  This could get funny very quickly.
  • The fighter's ability to carry any share of the common load of the party without being overbalanced and clumsy.  Does the fighter intend to employ a bearer or other henchman to carry his share of the gear?
  • The fighter's noise discipline (and, thus, the probability of the party losing surprise)
  • The actual effectiveness of said shield.  This would depend strongly on how it was worn.
  • The morale of any chaotic evil thief in the party (okay, I'm kidding here...)

With every advantage in life comes disadvantage.  Every dodge has a drawback.

That bit about how the shield was worn:  a single over-the-shoulder strap could be a weak point - an attack from the side might cut this strap, allowing the shield to  tumble to the ground uselessly, or the single strap might allow it to swing around toward the down-shoulder side if not strapped securely (and too securely would again constrain movement in combat).  This might expose the up-shoulder side to attack up high.

A padded harness would be a better (more expensive) option that could abate noise and make the shield more secure.  Of course, by the time the fighter gets through paying for all that, they may as well graduate to scale or plate mail.  (Such things would have to be custom-made by an armorer to be truly effective)

I agree with those who advocate getting to the root of why your player wants to wear a shield on his back, but a well reasoned defense of your position from a practical standpoint is worth having, too.
engine
member, 421 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 15:36
  • msg #11

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

horus:
I agree with those who advocate getting to the root of why your player wants to wear a shield on his back, but a well reasoned defense of your position from a practical standpoint is worth having, too.

Yes, except that there's not really anything to reason, because it comes down to preferences. Degree of balance between character choices and general difficulty of combat are all just preferences. Appealing to matters of realism really just obfuscates the issue. When getting to the root of why a player wants something, a GM needs to get to the root of why they don't want something.
rgrnwood
member, 59 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 15:40
  • msg #12

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

Remember that this is a have where you bring people back from the dead, teleport, turn into animals, etc. D&D isn't meant to be realistic, it's meant to be fun. So do what's fun.
horus
member, 252 posts
Wayfarer of the
Western Wastes
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 15:50
  • msg #13

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

I'll confess:  I don't referee D&D (though I do referee Empire of The Petal Throne).  All I was attempting to show is that, for every reasoned argument a player might make about this, there is a counter-argument.  I also meant to pick a bit of fun. (Aerodynamics against a breath weapon?  Funny!)

Yeah, get to the root of the player's concerns and you will side step most of that.  You will avoid getting into the fiddly bits.  That probably is a more desirable outcome, but be ready if that course closes to you (it takes two to get there, you know).
engine
member, 422 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 15:58
  • msg #14

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to horus (msg # 13):

Ah, well-played then. The aerodynamics one did catch my eye. I'm hoping one day someone will write and release (probably in volumes) the complete rules covering the multiphysics of magical energy releases. Then we can finally lay issues like this to rest.
Killer Rabbitt
member, 385 posts
He's got huge sharp fangs
Run away! Run away!
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 16:01
  • msg #15

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

As far as his reasoning for the new rule:


Basically put -- he's a very strategic and mechanical thinker.  I'd put him in the category of a kind of min-maxer.  He's intelligent, and he likes to build his characters around what advantages he can take to build the best character he can.  I've already acceded on some house rules and character builds in the spirit of good faith and fairness (like allowing him to take an ability from an older version of the class he's playing).  He's really not the type of person who takes "no" for an answer, however, and I know that he will continue to press the issue until I cave.  Besides, I dislike using the "I'm the DM, my word is God, I say no" approach.  Simply put, he's very competitive, likes to be in-control, and he likes to win.  At this point, it's basically turned into each of us contending the other is ignoring a vital element of our argument (that he says there's enough drawback built in, me saying there isn't enough).  As engine said below, unfortunately some of it just comes down to preferences.

A few replies to various points made:  we're using a slightly different version of 3.5 (Iron Heroes) which is a low-magic setting (so no worry about stacking weird bonuses on a shield).  In this rule set as well, armor provides DR, while shields provide defensive bonuses.  So the whole idea of "stacking" armor is a bit different in these mechanics.

As mentioned, he's going to continue pressing this point until I accede.  My one potential area of compromise would be to make this a Feat, but I don't think he'd like that, because he's already built his character up through level 20.  Secondly the system we're using has a different Feat tree escalation, so just throwing in a Feat throws that off somewhat.  My other compromise would be that the shield adds double its AC penalty:  as others have pointed out, having a large round object on your back throws off your center of balance, and is awkward.  I've worn back-shields (actual wooden back-shields) and they bounce and buck and clatter like crazy, even with a decently tight strap.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:02, Tue 12 Sept 2017.
engine
member, 423 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 16:19
  • msg #16

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 15):

I admire your reticence to just say no.

I don't like this approach, but there's always just saying "Sorry, the rules don't allow it." You don't need arguments from physics or biology when the rules say yes, you can do something, or no, you can't. I doubt the rules specifically address this issue, though they might say something like "one can only benefit from one shield at a time."

What about agreeing not to flank him any more? You could resort to enemies that use different tactics or have ways other than flanking to get the necessary advantage.

Offer him that. If he accepts, great. Maybe take that opportunity to consult with him on the kinds of foes he's willing to face.

If he doesn't accept, or seeks similar defenses against every approach you suggest, it could be that the player wants to play a different game than you do. Some people want to play characters who never get hit. There's nothing wrong with that, but it calls for a different game and a different approach. Maybe this game isn't a good fit for that player. Or maybe you can all agree on another game to play where the challenge isn't about staying alive.
Killer Rabbitt
member, 386 posts
He's got huge sharp fangs
Run away! Run away!
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 16:54
  • msg #17

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to engine (msg # 16):

I've already added house rules to the system myself, so I feel like saying "the rules just don't allow it" is rather hypocritical.  I've added, for instance, helms as part of a rule to protect against called shots and critical hits.  So I've already included a house rule to add realism and cover a gap in defensive abilities (which, in his argument, he pointed out to me).

It's not like he's been getting the crap kicked out of him in-game.  Quite the opposite.  They've handily mopped up most combats so far (they only just broke level 2 at the moment).  So it's not like he's proposing this because he feels he's fallen victim to flanking enemies in the past.  And I feel like saying "I won't flank you" is unfair to the other members of the party, who wouldn't have that "agreement" with me, or who may now have the message that if they complain about something enough I'll change it for them.

Part of the issue is he's my best friend.  We're all good friends who are involved with this game, who do things outside of gaming with one another.  His fiance is another player.  So any option that becomes "maybe this game isn't for you" essentially kills the game.  And it's not like it's not for him -- he's been getting really involved in it, clearly has plans and ideas for his character both mechanically and plot-based.  As I said, he's just kind of the type who likes to eke out what benefits he can (in a way I think he's largely unconscious about).

So, the long and short of it is -- he's not going to let it go.  I don't really feel like jeopardizing the game or our friendship as a whole over a stupid rule.  I feel like I'm in a bind where whatever I do I lose (whether it be "points" with a friend, or integrity within my game and its world).
engine
member, 424 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:15
  • msg #18

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

Killer Rabbitt:
I've already added house rules to the system myself, so I feel like saying "the rules just don't allow it" is rather hypocritical. 

Yeah, and I don't like to use that angle anyway, so never mind.

Killer Rabbitt:
So it's not like he's proposing this because he feels he's fallen victim to flanking enemies in the past.

Have you pointed out to him that he doesn't seem to need this extra protection? Perhaps you could offer a trial of the option for a session or two, and note how often it makes a difference for him.

Min-maxers tend to like bonuses whether or not they're necessary, but pointing out exactly how significant an effect it is might help both of you decide the matter.

Killer Rabbitt:
And I feel like saying "I won't flank you" is unfair to the other members of the party, who wouldn't have that "agreement" with me, or who may now have the message that if they complain about something enough I'll change it for them.

Make that agreement with them, and focus on different tactics. And just because you're not flanking this guy doesn't mean you're going easy on him.

But take this opportunity to talk to the players about the kind of game they want. Do they want challenge and danger, or do they want a cake walk? Do they want certain tactics off the table, or not?

The game should change if the players aren't happy. It's fair to ask that they be honest about what they don't like and why, and to ask that they help arrange a game that everyone enjoys.

Killer Rabbitt:
So any option that becomes "maybe this game isn't for you" essentially kills the game.  And it's not like it's not for him -- he's been getting really involved in it, clearly has plans and ideas for his character both mechanically and plot-based.  As I said, he's just kind of the type who likes to eke out what benefits he can (in a way I think he's largely unconscious about).

The game "not being for him" doesn't mean kicking him out of the game, necessarily. It might just mean modifying the game in some way. This will come out of finding out what he really wants. What would have to be true for him to stop trying to eke out benefits and just be satisfied with the typical level and advancement rate of the game?

Killer Rabbitt:
So, the long and short of it is -- he's not going to let it go.  I don't really feel like jeopardizing the game or our friendship as a whole over a stupid rule.  I feel like I'm in a bind where whatever I do I lose (whether it be "points" with a friend, or integrity within my game and its world).

Yeah, but one of those losses has real-world implications. Changing your game and its world is a small price to pay. It's not a "loss of integrity," it's just customization to one's friends and participants. That's been part of roleplaying games for generations.
Rez
member, 3832 posts
So....yeah...sure.....
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:24
  • msg #19

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

Give him a +2 bonus towards 1 person for a round 'Shield' bonus but make it so when used he takes a -2 to attack rolls?

Also, you can also have the NPC us it as well to be fair.

Let him know whatever is decided upon, it can be used for the NPCs as well. Perhaps he may re-think it.
engine
member, 425 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:32
  • msg #20

House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 17):

If he's your friend he shouldn't want to cause you to dislike the game. Talk to him friend to friend, not about preferences or "logical" rationale. Just say "C'mon, man, drop it and let's move on. I'll spring for the next pizza and we'll call it even. After we finish this game, we'll run a new one were everyone gets to thrown in everything they want."
orynnfireheart
member, 100 posts
Evil will always triumph
Because good is dumb
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:39
  • msg #21

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

While I think the concept of a back shield is stupid, I would allow it and just simply have all my NPC/Monsters have them. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
engine
member, 426 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:41
  • msg #22

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to orynnfireheart (msg # 21):

At that point, why not just remove the flanking bonus from the game entirely?
rgrnwood
member, 60 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:52
  • msg #23

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

What engine said. It sounds like this has become a huge issue when it's really a little one. At some point one or both of you will have to give. Have you told him how you feel about this? Have you told him your worries about how this would affect others (the precision attacker in the party)? Often times I'll get worked up and upset at someone only to realize I didn't tell them everything, then when I do they totally understand.

If you want to look at it mechanically, a shield wouldn't prevent precision strikes, it would only require then to target limbs. It would make a lot of noise, prevent you from accessing items on your back, would necessitate a strap that would make using the shield normally an issue (opponents could grab the strap, and it only provides defense from one direction (not all 8 directions on a grid. Throw him in a situation where he needs to do succinct that the shield on the back will not allow (stealth, multiple flankers so he only negates the bonus of one flanker, etc.)
swordchucks
member, 1437 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 17:52
  • msg #24

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

The concept is fundamentally flawed because 3.x just doesn't work that way.  Flanking isn't an attack at someone's back, but rather the effect of distraction given by facing two foes on opposite sides.

That said, the fundamental question is "do you really care?"  If you really care, just say no.  If you don't care, figure out how to balance what he wants.  You want to wear a back shield?  Sure.  If you are flanked, pick one of your flankers.  Your back shield gives its bonus to armor against that guy.  The catches are 1) you take the full ACP and 2) you have to buy/enchant the shield if you want it to be really effective.  By creating a money sink, it ends up being a self-balancing issue since he's going to have to divert resources to this new defensive item that could be better spent elsewhere.  In the end, flanking isn't *that* common, and if you're not actually removing the ability to sneak attack him, that +2 is really a minor thing.
engine
member, 427 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 18:05
  • msg #25

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

swordchucks:
The concept is fundamentally flawed because 3.x just doesn't work that way.  Flanking isn't an attack at someone's back, but rather the effect of distraction given by facing two foes on opposite sides.

I'd say it's even simpler than that, because it's really just a rule meant apply a benefit to tactical movement and positioning, which the game designers wanted to encourage. One can flavor it in a variety of different ways from there.
swordchucks
member, 1438 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 18:12
  • msg #26

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to engine (msg # 25):

Point.  The fact remains that it's something that a simple bit of equipment shouldn't be able to address without having a magical nature to it (which, again, costs resources).
engine
member, 428 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 18:16
  • msg #27

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 26):

Agreed. Unless the friend in this case is onto this as a means to fix for everyone an issue he perceives with the game, then it's not worth the consternation he's causing his friend, the GM, who appears to have made every other effort to say "Yes, and...." At some point, it's not really in the spirit of the game.
Arbentur
member, 111 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 18:30
  • msg #28

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

So bend the rules a little...

Tell him that he needs to acquire a shield and enchant it with the Dancing property that normally is used for weapons.  Then he can have his shield protecting his back and negating the +2 that a flanker would get for those 4 rounds.  Of course he has to fork over the coin for a +5 Shield since Dancing is a +4 ability by the tune of 25,000 gp for a shield that does that one specific thing for a few rounds at a time isn't a bad trade off.  Mind point out that it is a purpose built magical shield and can't have anything else added to it nor can it conveniently come to the front to give a better magical shield bonus cause it'll get in the way of his cool two handed attacks.

It makes him happy, it makes you happy cause it giveth but also taketh away after 4 rounds.  Sure, sure he could drop 50k, 75k or more for a bunch of them being carried by the porter who gets killed every time there is a dragons breath but that only hampers his potential Leadership score.  Honestly though who worries about the opinion of NPC's in a D&D game, right?

;-)

Also totally ignore the fact that the shield isn't ghost touched and incorporals can attack right through it still giving them flanking bonus...
orynnfireheart
member, 101 posts
Evil will always triumph
Because good is dumb
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 18:35
  • msg #29

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to engine (msg # 22):

That was what I was trying to imply. Hopefully the player would see his supposed min/max benefit dry up and then realize it was a stupid request to begin with.
Killer Rabbitt
member, 387 posts
He's got huge sharp fangs
Run away! Run away!
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 19:08
  • msg #30

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

For those suggesting making it magical, that won't work -- as mentioned earlier, this is a low-magic game.  They are currently at level 2, so it's not something that magical equipment will take care of.

Frankly, yeah.  This is more trouble than it's worth.  The argument itself is sapping my enthusiasm for continuing this game, which is unfortunate as its been been a project I've been working on for quite awhile.  I have pointed out the effects this would have on other characters -- like the precision attacker -- who would see NPCs use this style, and whose effectiveness in combat himself would go down.  As engine pointed out, I think he just wants the benefit, really, regardless of all else.  At this point he's kind of pouting about it; last message I received on the subject was "You win.  I won't have any more ideas."  Nevermind that I've adjusted things for the game in the past and have taken his feedback into consideration -- I've been handing out more gold which was slow-coming in early sessions, hooked them up with free equipment (warhorses) and lodging, and am working on including his desire to build himself as a mercenary captain.  As I said, it's not worth jeopardizing the game or the friendship (considering I'm officiating his wedding in three weeks).  It's a stupid argument, I don't like the idea or the rule, but it's not going to end until either I, or the game caves, and in the case of the latter I'm sure he'll see that as me rage-quitting and it'll affect the relationship.  So frankly there really is only one course of action for me here.
Rez
member, 3833 posts
So....yeah...sure.....
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 19:14
  • msg #31

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

Make it a feat.

Once per round you can pick someone flanking you.

They still get Sneak attack or anything else but they do not get the +2 bonus.

So flanking by 2 people. Works on one of them. Three people? Only one, ect.

Requirements:
Dodge (Maybe), Must have a specialized shield (Back shield)
This message was last edited by the user at 19:17, Tue 12 Sept 2017.
Killer Rabbitt
member, 388 posts
He's got huge sharp fangs
Run away! Run away!
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 19:25
  • msg #32

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to Rez (msg # 31):

Again, I don't think this will satisfy him.  I pointed out this sounds more like the purview of a feat to me, and he didn't like that.  He basically already has his character (feats included) mapped out to level 20.  The system we're using (Iron Heroes, a low-magic 3.5 system) also has some more complex feat trees and escalations, so throwing in a new feat like that throws it off quite a bit.
Rez
member, 3834 posts
So....yeah...sure.....
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 19:27
  • msg #33

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

Alright. Well then allow him to do it. It gives you the right to have the NPCs use it and whatnot (or give them higher to hits) or do more damage if they do.

Or simply state: You can go full defensive and gain a +2 to AC but cannot attack or attack and not have the bonus.

Good luck.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:31, Tue 12 Sept 2017.
engine
member, 430 posts
Tue 12 Sep 2017
at 19:31
  • msg #34

Re: House Rule Rebuttal:  Back Shields

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 32):

Make it a feat and give everyone (including NPCs who use feats) an extra feat.
Sign In