by Warduke (Ted)

A recent change in the house rules regarding the AC modifier provided by shields has prompted some analysis and discussion around armor and rules, discussions I think can usefully be examined further here.  

Let’s talk about armor. Central to the original game concept of Dungeons and Dragons was the idea of the armored knight, equipped with sword and shield and doing battle with dragons and generally defeating evil and getting the treasure at the end. Arthurian myths, legends of Charlemagne, the saga of Beowulf, and The Lord of the Rings were all important influences. These western European stories all blend fantasy and reality, and mixing them together into Dungeons and Dragons was an important, even critical, part of the excitement of playing a “fighting man”. The system also created some anachronisms and confusion in terms of the nature of armor used in the game. The original game assumed a somewhat medieval time frame, and descriptions of the armor and weapons in the books reflect that, though with some outliers. Later editions and expansions of the game added new kinds of armor, adding anachronisms and inaccuracies, partly to add flavor, but also in attempts to add some elements of “realism” to an essentially unrealistic situation. 

Looked at from a game standpoint, the important issue isn’t really the exact type of armor a fighter is wearing or how realistic it is historically. The important part is that each step of the Armor Class scale is represented by something that roughly equates to a particular “armor”, and the advantages or penalties each of those armors confers to the wearer. Minute detail and super historic accuracy isn’t the point. What’s needed is a system abstracted enough for decent gameplay. 

Decent gameplay is a somewhat vague term, but based on discussions in our Delve Detoxes and in our public Discord server, I think we can probably define two primary features: speed and functionality. Combat systems can be clunky and slow, and the desire for a fast and simple system is real. An evening’s game session might only be two or three hours. We’ve all seen evenings where the entire session is taken up with a single combat encounter. Faster combat and game play means more encounters, and consequently more loot and more fun. Functionality is an important part of that. A combat system that doesn’t work, or makes players feel like it doesn’t work, is slow and isn’t fun. I would argue, and I think most gamers would agree, a good system is one where players feel like they have some options and choices for armor and weapons, but not so many that the system is slowed or impossible to play. 

A good example of choice is the shield. As written, using a shield is an extra boost to AC that sacrifices the use of one hand. You can use a longsword and a shield, or you can use a two-handed sword, for example. Medium damage potential with extra protection or expanded reach and damage at the sacrifice of a little protection. Fair enough. 

The original 3d6 DTL house rules offered several changes to the RAW for armor and weapons. Tying weapon damage to character class and level, rather than inherent features of a weapon, meant that weapons all needed their own individual traits to set them apart. In my mind, this not only added some extra fun to the system, it also added some extra realism. Let's face it: the difference in damage caused to human tissue by a mace vs a warhammer isn’t important. They both hurt. What’s important is why someone chooses one weapon over another – those features it has that set it apart. 

This brings us to the shield.  

The house rules originally offered a +2 advantage to AC rather than the traditional +1, which was a big boon to a tiny goblin. The rationale for it, from my viewpoint, was to capture the importance of shields in much the same way the addition of weapon traits tried to capture the specifics of different weapons. The significance of shields throughout history cannot be overstated. While full body armor of the type we see in 16th century Europe (full body coverage of steel plates) is uncommon around the world and throughout history, shields were used in hundreds of cultures across millennia, often without the use of any other body armor. Shields provide robust protection, are relatively easy to make, and on average provide excellent coverage for a large portion of the body. Plus, you can decorate them.

Since an abstracted system that functions is more important than highly accurate historically accurate combat simulations, we need to make several assumptions about the shield. I think it is fair to say that we can assume that the shield modifier addresses the shield’s ability to provide coverage of the body from blows and missiles, the ability of the bearer to point the shield at known threats (cover the head against slung stones or flying arrows, place the shield in between the PC and the foe, etc.), and various other functional uses of the shield. The AC modifier also could be considered to incorporate the disadvantages, such as the limited arc of coverage, the areas of the body the shield cannot cover easily (at least if we assume a “standard” size shield rather than a pavise or any other sort of tower shield), and so on. 

So, why is it only +1 AC? I think this goes back mostly to the arbitrary nature of the system where functionality and incremental change on a fixed scale is more important than combat accuracy. In that sense, the +1 makes a great deal of sense. Body armor becomes the primary means of adding protection and keeps the hands free (it's possible the the original rules may also have been influenced by forms of armored combat that rely heavily on body armor and eschew shields altogether - European knights with pole-axes and Japanese Samurai with two handed katana, for example), and the shield is essentially an add-on that grants a little extra protection by limiting hands usage.  

But compare a good shield’s protection against weapons (and especially physical impact) against the limited functionality of a mere piece of hard leather on your chest. More importantly, consider the difference between leather amor (AC 12) and chain armor (AC 14), and the value of a stout shield relative to that difference. A +1 modifier might make sense from an abstract scale point of view, but it certainly doesn’t make sense when a crazed barbarian is trying to hit you with a club. Surely a stout plank of wood and iron is at least equal to the difference in protection between leather and chain, especially since neither is especially helpful against brute force impact? 

And so, dear readers, may I make the case for a +2 shield modifier? It leaves open the possibility of smaller bucklers and larger tower shields, and the variable modifiers they may offer. It realistically captures the true value of a good shield, and it doesn’t break the system. And perhaps most importantly, it may save some poor little goblin you all know and love. 

Next time: Warduke will ponder the Shields May Be Sundered rule…