Welcome to this week’s blog club. This week we are looking at “Shields Shall be Splintered!” from 2008 by Trollsmyth.
Next week we’ll discuss “Three Clue Rule” from 2008 by Justin Alexander (The Alexandrian). You can see a list of previous blog club posts here.
My current homebrew ruleset let’s you either dodge or block an attack. Within that context my rules for shields are:
So I too am trying to give shields extra verbs, not just modifiers, albeit in a more crunchy/detailed system.
This is actually one of my all-time favorite blog posts. It’s not high-minded theory crafting or pondering the diagetics of this or that (or is it?). It’s a practical example of a good houserule to take something that should be desirable but really isn’t and turning it into a cool item that can save your skin once.
I remember the hub-bub this generated when it was first posted! It got immediately folded into so many of the games at the time. I think the visual it brings to mind was partially responsible.
It is a bit of a strange mechanic though if you dig into it: It places another decision point in Combat (which admittedly, isn’t too bad in something simple like B/X: it’s binary and happens on the “Opponents Turn” so it’s not really going to hold things up too much.) It’s also heavily disassociated (much like a Luck Point or other bennie the Player can choose to spend to alter the Fiction directly.) Still loads of fun to implement in most games though, because it does come with a baked in Cost. Very cinematic!
I have seen Referees complain that it might result in Players buying and schlepping around multiple shields and for those situations I’m often drawn to mention that Rules like this aren’t really intended to be abused or taken advantage of by loop-hole seekers. Shields Will Be Splintered is an addition that favors the Players, and House Rules like this aren’t generally implemented to encourage gaming the system in this way. I just generally talk to my Players about it when their eyes light up thinking “I can just be immune to all damage if I have enough Shields to sacrifice!” 
I’ve also seen it used in Wild West games with a Character’s Cowboy Hat soaking a bullet which I found to be a very flavorful adaptation for genre purposes.
I see the appeal of the rule from the point of making shields more fun for players, but I feel like the boring +1 AC is good enough for my tables.
This blog book club is a great idea!
This rule is one I’ve folded into my OSR games. I like giving players another option in combat without adding much complexity, and it’s a tradeoff. Once the character’s shield is shattered their AC gets worse. Even in the case players want to bring multiple shields, they either take up encumbrance which could be used for treasure, or they may even hire a designated shield bearer. For me that last option evokes images of a squire accompanying a knight. If it came down to a player buying “too many” shields, most of my games operate out of a town on the edge of wilderness, which may well have a limited supply or capacity to produce them.
Ultimately, I like how light the rule is yet interacts in satisfying ways with the game fiction and expands the player decision space both in and out of combat.
This one has stuck with me since I first read it. It has now sparked thoughts of sundering in the other direction – the PC attacking a foe can sunder a shield. It requires wielding a heavy weapon (read: two-handed), so there’s a cost of sorts right there. The damage roll has to be large enough for the sundering to happen…or the attack requires no damage roll and the foe has to save to avoid the sundering. Gotta play with the options.
And I’ve even had the thought that a sundering strike could damage a beast’s scales or carapace or other hard protection, decreasing it’s armor protection a bit. That’s going to wait a bit to get played with, as figuring out the mechanic takes priority.
I like this! I think just base it on damage: that way more powerful weapons (or str bonuses to damage or whatever) make sundering more likely, which seems elegant.
But only damage in excess of the required threshold is dealt to the target, so you’re not getting a huge hit in and sundering their armour.
Another implementation I’ve seen is that Shields are assigned a die based on their level of protection/size: A wooden buckler may be d4, but a larger one of stout steel may be d8. Instead of completely negating a blow, the die is rolled and the amount is subtracted from the damage to the target.
This does add another die roll to Combat Resolution, but it does make the tactic a bit more of a gamble.
I’m looking at minimum damage to the foe, as the focus is on destroying the shield. Any damage the user of the shield takes would be incidental, I think. Still, a point or two of damage to the foe and reducing their protection could be useful.
i used shields will be splintered in a game i ran, and it worked really well at low levels, when money and encumberance were important. it was dramatic, and gave players an ace in the hole which allowed them to be bolder in a way that led to interesting play.
Once my players got money and henchpersons and mounts, they started buying piles of shield and using them as an invincibility glitch in a way that i found unsatisfying, and we ended up scrapping the rule.
this could have been a me problem, in the end my players were riding in howdahs on the backs of dinosaurs that could carry an obscene amount of stuff, so shields, and by extension invulnerability cost basically nothing.
i also let players decide to splinter their shield after damage was rolled, which i don’t think was the intention and, i think, made it more of a calculation then a dramatic choice.
still, i like the rule and think it can add a lot a game.