This came up in a discussion regarding illogical rules or rules that made little sense. Someone pointed out to me that the following rules were not at all sound, so I'm putting those here in hopes that someone (preferably Mr. Stafford) may help me enlighten the player as to the underlying foundation to these rules:

- Flails ignore shields completely. Why not have a partial shield defense against shields?
- Shields against axes have a variable defense of -1d6. Why was this rule changed from the previous editions from +1d6 against opponents with shields to the current rule?

This came up in a discussion regarding illogical rules or rules that made little sense. Someone pointed out to me that the following rules were not at all sound, so I'm putting those here in hopes that someone (preferably Mr. Stafford) may help me enlighten the player as to the underlying foundation to these rules:

It is always dangerous to apply logic to a roleplaying game. Everything is, after all, representative, not trying to imitate reality where logic nearly always works :)

- Flails ignore shields completely. Why not have a partial shield defense against shields?
Please do that if you wish, in your campaign
The point was to make weapons different, and the thinking on this was that the chain(s) that hold a flail's crushing head(s) to the handle were made to wrap up and over a shield, thereby ignoring the protective effects

- Shields against axes have a variable defense of -1d6. Why was this rule changed from the previous editions from +1d6 against opponents with shields to the current rule?
First, the +1d6 just has no logic or common sense to it. I actually cannot imagine how an axe would increase its striking power because the opponent has a shield.
However, considering that the blade of an axe can sometimes go past or over a shield and then strike its target (especially if the power of the strike also caused the shield to be driven towards the defender), the shield would provide some security, butnot always full protection

That was more or less my reasoning, particularly concerning applying logic (or in this case, realistic behavior of weapons) to a roleplaying game. Sometimes players can argue the silliest things if not for the sake of just arguing. :)

In our houserules:

Flails: +1d6 vs shields and +1d6 vs chain. (We found flails totally ignoring shields a bit too much.)
Maces: +1d6 vs chain.
Axes: +1d6 vs shields.
Hammers: +1d6 vs plate.

We decided to keep the roll in the attacker's damage roll, since it is quicker and easier, and simply ignore that last die for knockdown purposes (hence addressing the 'how come it hits harder versus a shield?' objection; it doesn't). Two-handed weapons add +1d6 to damage and this is a real addition of momentum of the blow, so it counts also for knockdown.

Remember, also, that these non-sword weapons break on a fumble, or when rolling a draw in combat with a sword.

Like Greg explained, the idea was to have weapons that would have their benefits and downsides, rather than try to model everything realistically.

[quote author=Morien link=topic=2829.msg21417#msg21417 date=1435135348]
In our houserules:
Flails: +1d6 vs shields and +1d6 vs chain. (We found flails totally ignoring shields a bit too much.)
I don't find that adding damage when the enemy has a shield is logical at all :)

I don't find that adding damage when the enemy has a shield is logical at all :)


Same argument of course applies to chain and plate armors, too. Like I explained in my response, we find it easier to have it in the attacker's roll, and simply ignore the extra die for knockdown damage. It simply represents a better penetration, i.e. making the armor/shield less efficient, which is what your amended rule does too. The only difference is that the shield protects with 0-5, instead of 1-6, but this is not large enough an issue to bother us.

The overall key is that a sword does not break. However, the defender gets better and better armor and most cases, a shield bonus. By modifying some weapons, a choice is given. There are many instances where a knight fights with a weapon other than a sword. Why? If the sword is so good, why are there hundreds of pictures showing something other than it?

As Morien pointed out, your reasoning is about the same as the official one. 0-5 vs 1-6. +1d6 vs shield vs variable shield effectiveness. It all depends on your style. I see nothing screaming abuse with your houserules and if your players like it that way, then go for it.

Personally, I don't see how having to roll a <i>n</i>+1th die in a different colour or separately is any easier than having the defender roll it. I'm assuming the extra effect versus shield (however generated) only applies if the defender succeeds in getting his shield in the way; the defender has to be aware of whether or not to add the six (or d6) in any case. It means the attacker doesn't have to be taking into consideration whether a shield is in place before rolling their damage bones.

I like the idea of giving flails the benefits of both maces and axes, even to the point (for the purposes of the abstraction) of ignoring shields entirely but would, from a simulationist perspective, like them to be less affected by criticals. It's not like you can aim them at a join or crack (or at any specific part of the opponent if they're using a shield) like you can an axe or sword, and being essentially ballistic, I wouldn't expect any hit to vary by as much as double effect...