Recently in a 3.5 game, a player proposed a house rule to me that he would like to incorporate in the game:  back shields.  His proposed rule was that a character could wear a shield on their back, which wouldn't add a shield bonus but would negate an opponent's flanking bonus.  I argued that, while I appreciate the historical verisimilitude of such a style (we both do Dagorhir, a foam LARP, which includes back shields, and I've done live-steel as well), I felt that the idea was unbalancing for inclusion, namely in that it did not have enough of a drawback.  To whit:

I feel that in the set-up of 3.5, a character's fighting style comes with certain perks and drawbacks.  Namely, characters who choose two-weapon or two-handed weapons are substituting offense for defense.  This ends up balancing out, more or less.  I feel that adding back shields adds a benefit without a concomitant drawback.  His argument is that there *is* a drawback, in that you have a shield that's only useful in a given situation (being flanked), and you still take the armor penalty for using that shield.  I countered that a bonus that isn't *as good* as a regular bonus (i.e. using a shield) is still an added bonus not built into the balance of play.

Furthermore, I can't see justifying negating the +2 flanking bonus without also negating any precision attacks (i.e. sneak attack) derived from flanking.  He argued that he'd be fine with granting the flanking *bonus* negation, but not the flanked *status* (thus granting Rogues and other characters their precision-based attacks).  For purposes of realism I couldn't see negating one without the other:  if you have a large plank of wood or metal strapped to your back, it's going to fairly effectively block most incoming blows, at least to the point where the kind of strategic placing of sneak attack wouldn't be feasible.  We argued what the difference is between a shield gripped in the hand and such a shield on the back:  namely that a back shield isn't moving, whereas a hand-held shield does, and one can feint around it, etc.  While one could arguably reach around to strike their opponent, again it stretches the feasibility of the accuracy of precision-based damage.  I'm more concerned with how this would affect the party's precision attacker, who would now be up against NPCs who (with any intelligence) would be using this fighting style to negate his sneak attacks.

Long story short, he continued to argue that his proposal of a shield that doesn't fully function as a shield yet adds to the defensive capabilities of two-handed characters is enough of a drawback to warrant their use.

To put in further perspective, we have a party none of whom use shields:  a two-weapon fighter, a pole-fighter, an archer, and my friend who uses a single sword (and gets bonuses with various feats and such).  So I feel this greatly skews in their favor.
This message was last updated by a moderator, as it was the wrong forum, at 02:20, Tue 12 Sept 2017.

Well, I agree that getting +2 bonus (or in some cases perhaps more) vs flanking attacks seems like a relatively big deal, at least anytime you are being flanked.  I agree that mechanically, it makes more sense not to split precision damage from the flanking bonus, but, admittedly one could argue someone can stab around the sheild.  However, that is also very true for the original attacks too.  One could also point out that a full plate, will basically have a sheet of steel behind it, why doesn't simply wearing heavy armor aleviate the flanking bonus?  (basically, the bonus is not being able to be aware of what is going on all the way around you)

Asuming you are talking about a heavy sheild, giving a +2 AC vs flanking attack, means you have an absolutely fully effective shield being actively projected out your back, as it is getting a full benefit.  I'd be more inclined to believe it would have to grant 'less' than full bonus, meaning none, for a light or buckler (since they are normally only 1) and perhaps a +1 bonus with a heavy sheild on ones back.  Keep in mind, a flanking attack need not strike them in their back, it can just as easily hit them in the leg, arms, or head, just like any other attack.  It just is easier to land some sort of hit, as the person is having to shift their awareness around to try to keep track of their opponents.

Or, if they insist that they should get their bonus, and you decide to let them have it.  Don't forget, if they are effectively 'back-wielding' a shield, they should be inhibited by wearing it.  This means applying the shields armor check penalty.

Next point out, unless they have some sort of feat granting them EXTRA training to effectively use a 'back sheild' with expertise, they are non-proficient with it.  That of course means they well take a penalty equal to the shield's Armor Check Penalty to all attack rolls, STR, and DEX based skill checks.

It could be amusing to consider someone suggesting they are going to strap a tower sheild to there back and battle that way, getting a benefit from it.  Sure, you might manage to negate a couple lost AC points because of it, but you'll be taking a -10 to hit and skill roll!

If they want to argue the sheild makes their back more armored, you could track down the rules for piecemeal armor and let them 'effectively' upgrade their 'back' to something like Plate when they are wearing a steel shield on their back.

If the player is dead set on this, compromise.

Suggest a feat (Shield Strapping?) that allows you to wield a shield when using a 2-handed weapon while taking a penalty to attack (-2?) and accepting the shield's ACP to stack, but only gain half the shield's AC bonus ([AC + Enh] /2).  This will let you emulate back shields, but also certain spear and pike fighting techniques, or even the large sode of samurai armor.

It requires significant buy-in (a feat), but provides real bonuses (Potentially a lot of AC, in the case of hella magic shields), at the cost of a modest drawback (-2 attack, basically allowing any shield to function as a pseudo-Buckler with enough training, but still giving the Buckler the edge in the case of dual wield).

It also, importantly, dodges the negating of an interesting tactical mechanic, namely flanking.  Even if you have a shield on your back, being attacked from opposite sides should net the attacker an advantage of some kind.  And, in the case of a Rogue or other teamwork creature, a big advantage that you should have to play carefully around.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:18, Tue 12 Sept 2017.

Perhaps he doesn't like being flanked. Ask him if that's the case and if it is don't flank him. You don't need to. Challenge him in some other way.

Maybe he doesn't like to be hit at all. IF that's the case, then don't try to hit him (or attack him with low threats he can wade through unscathed). Arrange situations in which the enemy can achieve their goal without landing a single blow.

Assuming the primary concern of the player is that he's a simulationist rather than just trying to be a munchkin or something to that effect...


How is a shield on your back somehow more effective at protecting you from being flanked than full plate armor would be?  It's hard to imagine that's the case...Especially against both flankers.

Anyway, a large part of flanking is about the need to split your attention between your front and back (or two sides or whatever,) not that the back of your armor is somehow more vulnerable to attacks.

Also, keep in mind, not every attack is going at the torso.  Probably not even most.  And, a shield strapped to your back can't really do anything to protect anything but that one spot...a spot that good armor should already be protecting, I'd hope.  It won't protect the joints that are the vulnerable points, especially from behind.  And, it won't reduce the distraction of being surrounded.

In addition, it wouldn't help at all against enemies flanking a player's sides.  (And, because 3.5 doesn't allow for PCs or NPCs facing a particular way, it's hard to say that flankers are definitely coming from behind rather than going after the sides.)  Finally, if there are multiple positions of flanking, there's no way a simple shield on your back negates all of their bonuses.

If the guy insists on the shield-on-the-back tactic having a mechanically simulated effect, it might allow the player to designate a single flanker at any given time and reduce the numerical bonus from flanking by 1.

First of all I would laugh if a player would like to push a house rule into MY game as a GM. They can suggest but if I don't like it it will never happen.
This sounds like just a player wants to get an extra bonus for "being clever" of tweaking the rules (and creating one if it doesn't exist). I personaly agree this sounds ridiculous and if I were you I would just simply say no...

On the other hand putting a shield on your back... How? A loose strap would be very uncomfortable (possibly a big penalty) a very tight (sort of permanent) strap would make your back quite rigid which sounds like another big penalty and would make your movement awkward.

Thinking through as it was mentioned how would protect a shield more than a plate armor. If you would add bonus against flanking for a shield on back you should give the same for plate armor. In effect it would be just putting two armors together. What bonus (and penalty) would you give if somebody comes to you that he wants to wear an extra hide on top of their chainmail? Is it really different?

As others have said, the back shield definitely should not negate flanking, for multiple reasons already posted.

What I have seen work though is give a slight bonus against ranged attacks. Small shields get a +1 ac vs 1 ranged attack per round and a large shield gets a +1ac vs 2 ranged attacks per round. They still take the negatives to skill checks.

This was only used in 1 game, so YMMV.

Saying "No," even with a plausible rationale is unlikely to end the matter. It might, if the player just wanted to see what sort of in-game ideas might work and they're the kind of player who just agrees with rules and rulings even if they can see a reason why the rule doesn't make sense.

Either say "Yes," and move on, or find out what the player's concern really is. Why this bonus in particular? Has it been causing them a lot of trouble? Does it make them feel less heroic or really ruin the fun of the game? Focus on getting to the real heart of the matter, not on balance and verisimilitude. Once you know what the player's issue is, and they understand your concerns (which means you have to state them clearly and honestly), then balance and verisimilitude can be usefully considered.

I agree with finding out why they want it and addressing the core concern. One piece of DM/GM advice I often hear is to say "Yes, but..." Yes you can swing from the chandelier, but you have to make this skill check. He's you can use two shields, but here's the penalty. You are allowed to compromise.

So what about allowing him to wear a small world on his back and apply it's AC bonus like the Dodge feat? Various Polearms like guisarmes and ranseurs allow bonuses similar to feats like improved trip and improved disarm, so what's unbalanced about improved dodge? Limit the size of shield he can wear and thus the AC bonus. Allow the ability to stack with the Dodge feat or be used septate from it (+3 AC vs one enemy, or +2 vs one and +1 vs another). This allows you to keep flaming options, gives him new tactical options, and gives you more items to reward him with or to take seat from him.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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


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.


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.


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?


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.

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.

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."

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.

In reply to orynnfireheart (msg # 21):

At that point, why not just remove the flanking bonus from the game entirely?

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.)

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.

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.

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).

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 32):

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

Sorry musta missed the low level, low magic portion in my skimming.

You're between a rock and a hard place.

You give it to him and then every bad guy uses the same trick and pisses off the other players cause they loose the bonus as well.  *shrugs*  About the only angle you can go with if you don't want to cause strife with him right now and suck up the others first irked at you and then at him for removing their bonuses.  Like the others said...luck to you.

That doesn't really solve it because then it's still "free" without any drawback -- you're not paying the feat slot you'd have to pay, since you're getting it for free.

Give it to him.  Then never have any enemies try to flank him ever again.

Personally, friend or not, I'd just tell him "No."  If he didn't accept that, he'd be out of the game.  At some point a player has to accept that the GM is occasionally going to refuse them something.

The problem if you just give it to him you should definitelly give a similarly strong boon to other players as well otherwise they will feel bad about this. I was playing in a game (actually more than one) where there was a GM's favourite character and I hated it being a second class player, so in the end I've left those games.

As mentioned before it should probably need a feat in either case and should not make "immune" against all flankings unless it is a magical shield which can be everywhere. In either case if a shield would make characters immune against flanking a plate armor should do the same, so I would give a boon as well to classes using flanking so their non-flanking attacks should be better to balance out the weakening, as most of the NPCs would wear a shield in their backs as well if this is so good. IMHO. So I would suggest to boost thieves and the like in some other way.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:51, Tue 12 Sept 2017.

But you're also not gaining any advantage over anyone else, because everyone also gets a free feat, which 3.5-type games have assured us is balanced.

The thing is, I give it to him, I give it to everyone.  So I have an unflankable party, immune to precision hits, without any real drawback from this (aside from normal AC penalty).

Like I said, I really only have one option anyway.

In reply to engine (msg # 39):

Yes, sorry if this wasn't clear.  If he's able to do it I'd automatically open it up to the rest of the party in terms of fairness.  It wouldn't be something he'd just automatically get and no one else.

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 41):

Okay. I don't see why you have to give that particular option to everyone. Let them pick whatever extra they want.

What I mean is, if I wasn't giving it as a feat I'd give it to everyone as an option they can do with the equipment automatically without the extra training a feat represents.

But giving it as a bonus feat still doesn't actually entail any drawback to it -- it's a feat they're getting for free.  This actually makes it *worse* because then if I want NPCs to use the same style they have to buy it with a feat.  Or, as you propose giving everyone else a free feat...that just over-complicates it, honestly.  That opens other options to players who may not want to go this route.  Sure, my NPCs get a bonus feat as well, but that's really only to catch up with them in a kind of meta-arms race.

At this point, I just feel burnt-out on the issue.  So...

Have it be a specific item. Something he can find. Make it so it can be put into his armor like a add-on. He can still be flanked but has a higher AC towards 1 person (+1 or +2) towards 1 person flanking him. Gives him a edge at times. Make it so he can swap it out but have it have other negatives.

Make up other items for the group they can find and use. Like say a sword or a bow. I know its low-magic.

Ok, if he insists on being able to use it, then why not say.  Ok, you can use a back shield, which when you use it, you take the armor check penalty for its use, [meaning attacks and physical skills] and you can apply the shield bonus to reducing the flanking bonus vs. one designated opponent, similar to a dodge bonus.  Do note however, if I was handed that rule as a player, I'd admit, I'd at least contemplate trying to get a masterwork shield, so it its armor check penalty would drop.  Just warning you.

But then you are allowing the behavior, so he shouldn't complain too much.  Like you said, when you get something, it should have 'some' sort of cost.  You could even give in even a little further, saying you only have to take the action check penalty when you use/become flanked.  Otherwise, you ignore the shield, since it is just weight on your back like a backpack.

It is disappointing that your friend would break up a game over a ruling that [at least in my mind] makes sense.  Obviously, I'm going to grant there might be a chance said individual honestly can't understand how they could be wrong.  However, I honestly just don't see how wearing a shield on your back, passively, can net more of a defensive benefit, with less restriction, than wearing one actively on an arm.  But I would definitely focus more on making sure the game remains fun.  If that means making your game a bit comical in that sense, so be it, as long it is fun for everyone, yourself included.  You could even, if you don't feel like you can just 'make the call' you could present the matter to the group to make a silent ballot vote to determine the matter.

I think there was something in the Oriental Adventures book along this line. It was a turtle shell worn on the back. I forget how it affects the mechanics, but I'll look it up when I get home this evening unless someone looks it up first.

Why doesn't he just get better armour if he's concerned about his back?  *sigh*  He sounds like more than a bit of a pain.

I keep imagining the logistics of wearing a shield on one's back.  Tell him he has to wear a shield on his back in RL to at least 3 gaming sessions and then you can discuss it again.  ;-)  The weight of a good shield is going to change his centre of balance, the strapping to hold it on is going to inhibit motion and probably become a literal source of pain, and for what?  If he is flanked by more than one opponent, it's only going to (possibly) work against one, and probably give the other an advantage while he's manoeuvring toward the first.  And I'd assume in the meantime there would likely be an opponent in front of him who should be getting a big plus while his attention is so divided.  Again a RL demonstration might be in order.

If you do decide you have to cave in, in the interests of peace, make it on a trial basis, and play up the difficulties in any combat, including having him flanked by more than one at a time.  I'm assuming encumbrance isn't an issue, but certainly the extra weight should come into play at some point.  His time getting equipped is going to be longer; no jumping out of bed and just pulling this on, the straps are going to need adjustment every single time, else the shield is just going to be swinging around.  And as someone has mentioned, he's not going to be able to carry anything on his back, or if he does it's going to be quite inaccessible, even out of combat.  If other characters have to carry more than their share of party supplies, maybe the flanking he'll have to worry about will be coming from his companions.  ;-)

Finally if you have a decent artist in your group, get someone to draw a picture of how silly his character looks with a shield on his back, all the strapping it takes to hold it securely in place, and with an opponent there aiming for one of the places that is still quite exposed!

This sounds less like a game mechanic issue, and more like a lack of respect issue. This "friend" wants you to run your game his way -- or he's going to blackmail you with his behavior in and out of the game.

He doesn't respect your authority as the GM, and speaking bluntly, he doesn't respect you as his "friend" if he's pulling this kind of tactic on you.

You've already decided to give him what he wants... and it's soured your interest in the game. Now you just need to decide if it's worth your time to keep investing in something you don't really enjoy. No one else can help you with that answer. Bear in mind though, that this is training him to know you will cave if he applies enough pressure... and it'll happen again.

I've dealt with "friends" who failed to uphold their side of the friendship fairly, and it really sucked, to discover just how unfair they'd take it. I'm still "friends" with the individual, but it's a very carefully measured, limited "friendship" -- I ask for nothing, offer nothing, and expect nothing, where I know they'll fail to meet me evenly. We still have fun doing stuff together, but I keep them at arm's length, and my respect for them has dropped substantially.

But, some people just aren't emotionally able to meet you as equals. This friend of mine is one of them. Sounds as if this guy you're dealing with is another. Decide what you can live with comfortably, and act accordingly.

I'm sorry, I just can't resist.  I've already admitted to having no GM cred in this system, so take what I say with a Small Siberian Salt Mine in your hip pocket.

I still think the best course is to let this fellow have his back shield.  Have him describe it in in-character terms as well as in game-mechanical terms, the more detailed the description the better.  It needs to become a living part of him.

During the first combat, let the devil that lives in those details do his worst.  Don't think of it as revenge - it's Karma in action (and, yes, I know I'm mixing iconographies and metaphors with gay abandon here...)

Let him feel the hot wind of a dragon's breath sweep him off his feet and blow him back-side over tin cup for many points of damage.

Let his sword arm shoulder pauldron catch on the edge of the thing just as he's about to make a called shot.  (Be fair with the dice on this, of course, but take the advantage when it presents itself.)

Let the party be cheesed off by his lack of noise discipline just as they are preparing to surprise some orcs.

It doesn't have to happen all at once, either.  In fact, it's more believable if it happens at truly random intervals.

If he's reading this thread, let him think and consider where this is taking you.

"armor provides DR, while shields provide defensive bonuses"
And there you have it. Shields provide defensive bonuses rather than damage resistance because they are active, rather than passive in nature. That is, they are actively wielded not just soaking up damage.

A 'back shield' as others have pointed out would be just a clumsy bit of added armor and just add more damage resistance, not a defensive bonus. This is why in many centuries of manual combat the back shield was not adopted by warriors in the field.

But in the end, as many have noted, this is not about reality or game mechanics or anything else other than this 'friend' wants to get his own way. Whether you knuckle under to his blackmail or not, he will keep behaving like this until it comes to something you will not or cannot permit. Then he won't be your friend any more.

You should tell him "no" and stick to that.

As far as I'm concerned the game doesn't give you a flanking bonus because someone is behind you. It gives you a bonus because you have to fight on two fronts. They could be on your left and right or diagonally across from eachother.

Inside your square you are assumed to be moving constantly. Which is why the game has no facing like you might have in a hex based game. Therefore no one ever attacks from the back per se. Meaning the back shield is pointless. Since you are constantly maneuvering your front to defend from attacks from both sides. Hence the bonus to hit.

I believe this might be part of the reason why backstab was turned into sneak attack.

Just my two cents. There is no mechanic where you are attacked from the back so no need for a back shield.

If he's not willing to pay a Feat for a massive mechanical advantage, he doesn't want it bad enough.  His 20 level plan will have to get adjusted, oh no.

That's the way it works in D&D, especially 3.x.  If you want an advantage, you have to give something up.  Want Sneak Attack?  Get a d6 hit die.  Want to cast arcane spells?  Enjoy your total lack of armor.

Just wearing a shield on your back without some kind of special training or technique might be advantageous, but it might not be advantageous enough to be modeled within the system.  You don't get a morale bonus to saving throws for eating a hearty breakfast, unless that breakfast was legitimately magical.

Additionally, if we want to get all pedantic and dip into game design: as stated above, the bonus for flanking is a bonus to the attacker.  It rewards the attacker for creating a condition where the defender has to divide his attention, and penalizes the defender for being drawn out of position and getting bogged down by enemies.

In fact, you could argue that a normal large shield (+2 AC) is specifically designed to negate flanking bonuses by covering an entire flank.  And in 3.x a Tower Shield does that and more, at a modest attack penalty.  You just have to, you know... use the shield.

In short, persistent benefits that let you partially ignore mechanics (flanking) or gain off-book mechanics (gaining an extra "hand" to use a shield) is the purview of Feats.  If you're not willing to pay a Feat, you get to play by the same rules as everybody else.

Edit: When determining what is and isn't worth a feat, remember, it's worth examining the lower threshold of Feats as well.  Remember, Dodge is a feat and all it gives you is +1 AC, some of the time.  Heck, Skill Focus is a feat and it just gives you +3 to specific skill checks.

The benchmark for your use case is Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword.  This feat lets you use a bastard sword one-handed, allowing you to gain use of a shield without the investment of a "wielding hand," at the cost of the various bonuses that come with two-handed wielding.  If the benefit is greater than that, it's worth considering implementing as a feat.

Not that the feat has to be/should be that bad (see my draft above), but that the bonus that the player wants is significant enough benefit to warrant the player invest some of his advancement resources into.

Edit: holy typos batman
This message was last edited by the user at 18:35, Thu 14 Sept 2017.

In reply to Killer Rabbitt (msg # 1):

You can say that a shield bonus already does negate at least part of the flanking bonus, no matter how it's used. A small shield adds + 1 to AC, if I remember correctly, and a large shield adds +2.

If you consider it from a historical perspective, shield bonuses are actually kind of silly. A large shield, something like a Kite Shield in particular, if properly used, essentially cuts off the line of attack that it is worn on. If anyone tries to attack from that angle the attack can be negated almost entirely by moving the shield a couple of inches. It also makes you almost immune to missile fire from whichever direction it's pointing. These are HUGE advantages in combat, that aren't really accounted for by a +2 bonus. But historically minded dnd players don't complain because a simple +2 makes the game play better and doesn't unbalance it. If you look at the typical equipment of an ancient infantrymen it almost always includes a shield. Even some people who carried two handed weapons as primary weapons carried a shield for situations where they were using their sidearms. This is also why shields are still used today in some contexts.

There are a couple of problems here though. First up, the same argument that your players use for a shield should also be used for plate armour. No matter what argument you're using, most weapons are not going to breach the plate unless they are specifically aimed to exploit the gaps in plate. Most knights were probably killed after being knocked down, and then their opponent sitting on top of them and stabbing them through the breathing hole or eye holes in the helmet. Heavy blunt weapons like maces or war hammers might have a chance to injure the guy inside by transferring the energy from a powerful strike that manages to land fairly solidly. So, the rogue trying to stab you in the ribs from behind should hit solid steel 9 times out of 10. A guy in properly made, well fitted plate is literally the medieval version of a tank, and real plate armour should cost the modern equivalent of a Ferrari. As soon as you start doing it for shields, next it's "but what about muh plate armour?" Then its "But half-plate!" Ad nausem until the flanking bonus vanishes entirely.

The second problem is that properly made and fitted armour is designed to be articulated. Meaning it's designed for you to be able to move while wearing it, often sacrificing levels of protection so that you *can*. Plate armour is protected at the joints by chain mail, since there's only so many ways you can angle and attach plates that allows the joint to bend in a useful way. A large piece of stiff wood strapped across your back? Not so much. It's restricting to your movements in a way that makes you less able to dodge, etc. So the bonus and penalty should cancel each other out.

Shields were not really as passive a thing as they are treated today.  It wasn't simply a big thing between you and the enemy, it was used actively.  You put it where you need it.  Roman legionaries were trained to shove their shields into their opponent's face, blocking his vision, and then stab below the shield with their sword.  (this tactic was why the Romans preferred shorter swords.)

Soldiers are not stupid, they generally do whatever they can to protect themselves.  They can be extremely creative at this.  So a good way to judge "what actually works?" is "what soldiers actually did it?"  Guaranteed, if wearing a shield on the back was an advantage, it would have become very, very popular.

These would be reasonable explanations why it would never work in the real world. Obviously this player never actually asked for this bonus because it is reasonable. He wants a magical bonus because why not and if he would like to explain that "I'm immune to flanking because I'm wearing a cape" the GM would just laugh on the explanation. He could have said "I'm immune to flanking because I have green eyes". There is absolutely no realistic sense in this, so this is the sort of just give me my bonus category.

I have to say I had similar players. Most of them left as I don't really like this type. If they really want I can give them bonuses for sure but for every similar bonus I would give a much bigger flaw.
Yes sure, your back shield will make you immune to flanking no problem, but it is also very unwieldy and eliminates all your movement based defense bonuses (like dodge and similar) or it makes you impossible to do a critical hit as your arms just don't have enough place to move.

In addition to the mention of shields and being passive...

You had to use them to DEFLECT attacks.
The idea was to make attacks glance off the shield rather than take a direct hit.
A shield that took direct hits got damaged and destroyed quickly.

IF you use this rule. Apply damage as per sunder for every hit to the backside.
(Obviously this would apply to every hit as every attack gets +2 ac)

Shields would not last long for sure.

Furthermore, be sure to recognize non-stacking bonuses. Shield bonuses not stacking with other shield bonuses.

Also remember there is now no location for a backpack. And if they try to put the shield ON the backpack, there is no real stable way to put it there. So carrying ANYTHING on your back is nonsense.

Finally since the shield is no longer being wielded I believe there are rules for STEALING things not being wielded. So if this shield is being a huge problem for a ROGUE, any sane rogue would do the thing they're good at. Just remove the problem.

Finally and most importantly. This sounds like a Toxic player. If you don't want to play anymore because of it, you should have an adult talk with this person. If they can't handle it, kick 'em out. You probably want to surround yourself with people who are reasonable folks than energize you to play rather than drain you. You'll probably want to make a point that this back and forth has just reached the point of too much and we need to just fruiting play already or not at all.

In reply to AramilNailo (msg # 57):

1.) Do not bring up realism.  That is folly.

2.) Do not offer special rules, feats, equipment, etc.  That is dancing around the issue.

3.) Do not say no or yes outright.

Ultimately, despite how silly the idea of a back shield providing any specials protection is, that is not the issue.  The issue is the argument.  Give him two options and be done with it:

1.) Eliminate flanking for one flanker only.  Take a penalty to attack.

2.) Back shields do nothing.

He can argue all he wants but it's not about realism or who is GM.  Your only reasoning needs to be if there is a special bonus there has to be a penalty to offset.
This message was last edited by the user at 21:12, Tue 09 Jan 2018.

In reply to Percivalos (msg # 58):

Perc, the IF was in caps intentionally. I wouldn't do this at all. Ever.