-

-	-	-	-	-
Dragon #127	-	1st Edition AD&D	-	Dragon magazine

A shield embodies protection, safety, and
succor in the heat of battle. Everybody
with 2 cents of AD&D® game knowledge
grabs a shield for all 1st-level characters
that can use one. "That's one more
point of armor class," they declare smugly.
But is it that easy? Does everyone have an
inborn talent for shield use, or is it that
characters don?t need to have any specific
knowledge to properly handle one? (?Here,
boy, take this. If somebody takes a swing
atcha?, throw it in front of ya. An? do some
cuttin? yerself.")

A shield is like many other pieces of
equipment in the AD&D game. The purchase
of a set of thieves? tools, for example,
does not grant the ability to use them.
The same is true of a weapon. Thus, we
have our present dilemma: Is it fair to
assume that a person could use a shield to
full advantage without prior training?
Probably not. For example, an inexperienced
PC might not be able use the shield
in a manner which would not interfere
with his swing. He may expose himself at a
bad time as a result, allowing the enemy
an easy strike. Furthermore, a shield the
size of a buckler presents its own problems:
It is so small that it would take a
good deal of practice to use it for defense.

Now assume that a PC has learned to use
all shields in general. Is it logical to say
that all shields provide the same amount
of protection? How can something the size
of a buckler cover a defender as well as a
large shield? Certainly, a buckler is more
mobile, but it is not necessarily as effective
as its larger counterparts. Follow this train
of thought a little further. In DRAGON® <LTH: Shield & Weapon Skills>
issue #57, Len Lakofka tells us that nearly
two-thirds of all blows are caught by a
shield. This would seem to make the shield
far more effective as protection than the
single point of armor class it presently
provides.

A new shield system

To put this into game terms, characters
should be required to take a weapon proficiency
in shield use in order to use a
shield properly. In addition, characters
should be required to take further proficiencies
to gain full advantage of the various
shield types. Table 1 should be
consulted when considering shield use.

The armor-class column shows how
much protection each shield provides if
the user is sufficiently proficient. The to
hit column gives penalties to hit for all
attack rolls that are suffered by a nonproficient
user of a shield. Additionally, the
nonproficient user gains but one point of
armor class no matter what shield is used
(the exception to this being the buckler; <spiked buckler>
such a shield would be useless for defense,
but could still be used for attacking, as
described on page 78 of Unearthed
Arcana).
 

Note the addition of a new shield, the
mantlet, which was mentioned in previous
issues of DRAGON Magazine. The mantlet
was actually employed in hand-to-hand
combat during the Middle Ages. Oval or
rectangular in shape, the mantlet covers a
6? creature from head to toe. Attached to
the bottom of the mantlet is a hinged spike
that can be swung out and driven into the
ground to provide a standing defense. This
shield weighs 15 pounds and is considered
very bulky. A mantlet should sell for 20 gp.

When a single shield proficiency is taken,
it is assumed that the character has
taken a basic course in the use of all
shields. This single proficiency allows the
shield-user to do the following: disregard
the ?to hit? penalties given in Table 1; use a
buckler properly (reducing armor class by
one point); and, use all other shield types
with enough ability to reduce armor class
by two points. Each additional proficiency
taken provides another place of armor
class for the pertinent shield used until the
maximum protection allowed for each is
reached as shown on Table 1. Thus, after
three proficiencies are taken, all shields
are usable to full advantage.

Table 1
Protection by Shield Type

Shield type	Max. AC bonus*	"To hit" penalty
Buckler	1	0
Small	2	-1
Large	3	-2
Mantlet	4	-3

In order to arrive at the armor classes
given for each shield, several factors have
to be decided ? the most important being
the sizes of the different shields. The
buckler is stated as being 1? in diameter.
By extrapolating from the encumbrance
charts, we assume that a small shield is 2?
long and that a large shield is 4? in length.
We can also deduce that the widths of the
four shields are from smallest to largest:
1', 1½', 2', and 3'.

Additionally, a table on page 64 of the
Dungeon Masters Guide states that a target
of missile weapons receives beneficial
modifiers to AC for any cover or
concealment it might have. This would
also hold true for melee combat; it's a lot
harder to hit someone hiding behind cover.
Because of its more mobile defense, a
shield qualifies more as concealment than
as cover against missile fire -- unless, as in
the case of the mantlet, a user decides to
hide behind it. Table 2 illustrates this use
of a shield. The initial concealment figure
is from the DMG, page 64. The percentage
in parentheses is a conjectural figure of
the degree to which a 6'-tall creature can
be concealed by each shield. Although not
a perfect match with the DMG's figures on
page 64, this does provide, a sound basis
for correlation to shield protection.

Table 2
Percentage of Target Concealed

Shield type	Concealment	AC bonus
Buckler	25% (12%)	+1
Small	50% (33%)	+2
Large	75% (88%)	+3
Mantlet	90% (100%)	+4

When figuring a shields protection, it is
important to base the percentage figure
for concealment on that provided for a 6'
creature. A large shield would thus act as
a mantlet to a creature only 4' tall, but
would be considered small to a creature
12' in height.

Magical shields provide a special case. If
a shield is enchanted, it acts as if the bearer
has at least one point of shield proficiency
(assuming the bearer can use
shields). The bearer, also receives the
magical bonus as usual. If the bearer
already has proficiencies, he receives
whatever bonus is applicable.

Because shields now provide a varying
amount of protection, a determination
must be made of shield type each time
that a shield is found. Of all such shields
found, 75% will be large (good for
humans). Small shields have a 15% chance
to be found, and bucklers and mantlets
each have a 5% chance for appearance. Of
course, the DM can always predetermine
what is found.

Shields as weapons
A shield can also be a very effective
offensive tool. Remember the movies
wherein the hero uses a shield to run over
or bash his enemies into submission? The
combat system in the AD&D game is simple
enough that adding these tactics would
not clutter it. There are actually provisions
for it in the game now.

The buckler is the only shield that can
be used for attack and defense in the same
round. Characters need not be proficient
to attack with a shield. The player must
state that a PC is going to attack with his
shield before any rolls are made that
round. The three forms of shield attack
are pummeling, pinning, and shieldrushing.

If a player is using System I, the first
method of unarmed combat described in
Unearthed Arcana (page 106), these
attacks are resolved in the same manner
as are pummeling, grappling (pinning), and
overbearing (shield-rush) attacks. Pinning
differs from grappling only in that there
must be a wall or some sturdy object or
force against which to pin the opponent.
Note that if a shield-rush is successful, an
effort to pin the opponent to the floor
might then be attempted.

The exceptions to these rules of attack
are the buckler and mantlet. The former
always attacks as described in Unearthed
Arcana. The latter, because of its size,
cannot be used to pummel an opponent.

System II, the second method of unarmed
attack described in Unearthed Arcana,
is a bit more complex and requires the
further definition of a shields usefulness.
In pummeling, all shields are considered
large, hard objects (the buckler and
mantlet excluded as before). If the
defender can still effectively employ his
shield, it is figured into his armor class.
Pinning an opponent with a shield works
in the same manner as does a grappling
attack, with a couple of modifications. The
defender of such an attack would be able
to use his shield for defensive armor class.
In addition to the five methods given to
break free of a grapple, a pin may be
automatically broken after one round if
the defender?s strength is no more than
four points lower than that of the attacker.
Conversely, if the attacker?s strength is five,
or more points less than the defender?s, he
cannot successfully pin the opponent.
Shield-rushing and overbearing attacks
would not differ in use.

Final thoughts
On the whole, this system does not
adversely affect game balance, but it
allows for a more realistic use of the
shield. At the same time, it gives characters
something to work for. One might ask:
"Why make characters use valuable weapon
proficiencies to learn shield use?" The
reason is that it is not desirable for everyone
to be completely proficient with
shields. The additional protection given
would make it far and away the best nonweapon
proficiency. Without this system,
most characters would choose shield use
to avoid suffering from attacks. But if
weapon proficiencies are required, these
characters are not likely to have many
slots to spare until weapons proficiencies
are gained. Remember: A character with
an 18 dexterity, complete proficiency with
a mantlet, and a suit of full plate armor
has a frontal armor class of, -7! That type
of protection must be earned.

This system can be altered to fit any
individual campaign. One might decide to
restrict this bonus to fighters and rangers,
in the same manner that weapon specialization
is treated. This may not be such a
bad idea. One might also rule that, after
becoming completely proficient with
shields, each additional proficiency taken
in shield use provides a +1 initiative
bonus in striking the first blow. Shields
should count for more, and these are just
a few suggestions to make them do so.

Shields are a part of the game that is not often
thought about, and I was glad to see Tim Mernett
write about them in issue #127, even
though I disagree with him on several counts.

1st, I don't think that using up a proficiency
slot is a good idea because it reduces the number
of weapons a shield-user can have relative
to a character who does not wield one.  Fighters
need that advantage of 4 starting weapons to
keep up with other fighter types who have
more skills.  Rangers also need a specific set of
weapons as per Unearthed Arcana and can't
afford to use proficiency for a shield.  Also,
one must assume that fighters learn many
undefined skills while they train -- they learn to
dodge blows better than others, ergo their 10-sided
HD.  They also learn to parry, feint,
target vital organs, pummel, and brawl, but I
think that these skills should just be assumed
for the fighter and not dealt with in great detail.

2nd, I don?t agree with the use of the
mantlet. In short, a mantlet is a very large
barrier between two combatants, and it
severely limits combat potential for both sides.
Even a large shield is big enough to hinder full
swinging by its wielder, which causes a -1 to
hit (mantlets cause a -2 to hit). It does seem
reasonable to remove the penalty if the shielduser
is being charged and he sets a weapon
against that charge, or if a mounted character is
charging with his weapon held fast in front of
him (each case requires judgment, of course).

3rd, I like the idea of driving into someone
with a shield to push him off a cliff, into a fire,
or the like. There should be some more risk,
though. For example, should Hercules swing his
shield at Jack Jostick and (gods forbid) miss,
then Hercules?s belly is exposed to Jack, and I
would say that this exposure is a bit worse than
having no shield at all since the shield wielder is
slightly off balance from missing and has his
shield where it will do the least good. I think a
one-point penalty from the shieldless armor
class is appropriate.

One of my own thoughts on shields is that
they should be considered as cover when parrying
against missiles or thrown weapons. If the
shield wielder is aware of the attack, then the
percentile dice are rolled and compared to the
cover provided by the shield. If the roll is under
the cover percentage, then the shield has
stopped the attack; if the roll fails, the attack is
resolved without the shield or dexterity bonuses
(since the act of parrying is standing one?s own
ground). When parrying this way, movement
must be reduced to one-third normal since the
wielder is hiding behind the shield as much as
possible (I?m not sure if a cavalier would parry
missile shots). The use of the mantlet is therefore
wonderful for laying siege to a castle full of
archers because of the protection provided, but
it is really too big for skirmishes.

Richard Devens IV
Center Sandwich NH
(Dragon #132)
 

I would like to respond to Richard Devens's
comments in issue #132 concerning my own
article on shields in issue #127. His first argument
is that making shield-use a weapon proficiency
is unfair to fighters and rangers ? the
former because the fighter needs four starting
weapons, the latter because a ranger has many
types of weapons he must learn before considering
anything else. Mr. Devens goes on to say
that such proficiency with a shield should be
assumed as part of normal training.

It seems that only nonfighter classes would be
able at first to take advantage of the system, but
in my experience as a DM, I don?t see that this
holds true. Players of fighters do not generally
take four different weapons at 1st level. With
weapon specialization being so much of an
advantage, nearly all fighters I know doublespecialize
in something, then take a long-range
weapon. Why not? The rules allow it, and it
gives you extra attacks and extra attack-roll
bonuses. This type of behavior tends to make
the fighter class unbalanced. However, if you
present this marvelous way to gain a better
armor class through weapon proficiencies, you
can wean some of those fighters from the
offense kick.

As for the ranger, he really doesn't have much
of a restriction on weapons with which he
becomes proficient. As stated on page 22 in
Unearthed Arcana, a ranger must use his first
four weapon proficiencies on four different
weapons unless he decides to specialize in some
weapon -- which means he could quite possibly
be 22nd level before he is finally specialized in
all of them (by becoming specialized in a bow,
double specialized in a sword and an axe, and
finally specialized with a dagger). It wouldn?t
hurt to allow rangers to become proficient with
a shield, too.

It is right to assume that the use of a shield is
taught in normal 1st-level training of a fighter
or ranger. But it is also part of the training of
any shield-using class. This system reflects
further interest in and use of the shield on the
part of the character, thus improving performance
with it as weapon specialization does.

Richard doesn?t agree with the use of the
mantlet at all, reasoning that it is a large obstacle
between attackers. This would only be true
if the user of the shield was simply hiding
behind the mantlet and there was no way
around, in which case the mantlet could be
considered to be a wall. But if a mantlet-user is
going to attack, then he?s going to have to
expose himself to be attacked; if he?s not proficient,
he will suffer the ?to hit? modifiers: -2
for a large shield and -3 for a mantlet. Also,
there is no reason to penalize a character?s
armor class if he sets a weapon for a charge. A
shield plays no part in it, as the weapon types
listed as being usable for that maneuver extend
beyond the shield (DMG, page 66).

Also stated in his letter is the idea that an
unsuccessful pummel, pin, or shield-rush will
leave an attacker more exposed to counterattack
than normal. If this were true, wouldn?t the
attacker also leave himself more vulnerable
after a missed sword swing? He would be just as
surprised by the miss. Leaving oneself open for
attack after an attack is already accounted for
in the character?s final armor-class value. You
cannot assume that the counterattack is always
on the advantageous side.

Mr. Devens?s final point is a good one. A shield
could be counted as cover against missile fire if
it is large enough to cover the being?s entire
body without having to be moved around for
defense. This would make the mantlet the only
shield useful for this purpose to man-size
beings. An attack on a character defending in
such a manner would be modified by the table
on page 64 of the DMG (i.e., a +10 armor-class
bonus).

Tim Merrett
Logansport IN
(Dragon #136)