The idea that spell (or Improved Unarmed Strike) touch attacks don't provoke AoO is a bigger problem. If you are deliberately reaching close enough to touch your target will swat your hand away (and maybe literally). You could say that getting you hand attacked still activates the touch spell...
The idea that spell (or Improved Unarmed Strike) touch attacks don't provoke AoO is a bigger problem. If you are deliberately reaching close enough to touch your target will swat your hand away (and maybe literally). You could say that getting you hand attacked still activates the touch spell...
... and that walks you back around to treating it as a weapon, on the assumption that sane people will not normally do something that automatically makes them the victim of an unknown spell.
(Yes, it's the result of an abstraction. So is giving a guy with a longsword an AoO against someone attacking bare handed, but not against someone attacking with a dagger.)
I'm honestly not seeing how adding a shield bonus to "touch attacks" overvalues it at all... Currently no one is using shields, period.How do you "overvalue" something that has NO value?
You are absolutely right about shields being underused. Giving up your off-hand is a lot to ask for a few points in flat-footed AC. In this innocent case, I think adding the bonus to touch AC would be fine.
Here is the case some people can justifiably be worried about...
A +1 animated heavy steel (or wooden) shield costs 9150g and gives a +3 shield bonus to AC, while allowing the user to freely use both hands. Make it 10,150g, and the armor check penalty disappears.
A ring of protection +2 costs 8000g, and +3 runs 18,000g.
So, if you have shield proficiency and around 10,000g to spend on a shield (probably around 10th level), using an animated shield will be the most efficient way to improve your touch AC without suffering any penalties normally associated with shields.
Is this a problem? I don't think so. I always thought Parrying Shield was a must-have for any front-liner able to use a shield.
Is this a problem when your cleric casts greater magic vestment on your shield? Maybe. But I still don't think so.
These are the worst core abuses that I can think of. Jason, you need to remember, a shield's bonus being a little better than an armor's bonus makes sense in a way, since armor doesn't impede your ability to take more effective actions (e.g. two weapon fighting, two-handed strength bonus).
Except armor does impede your ability to take more effective in up to three ways: Base movement being reduced, Armor check penalty, and run speed reduction. If your movement is reduced you aren't moving as far with a move action or charge meaning you might not get an attack in on a given round... the armor check penalty could make you fail an important balance check making you fall, lose an action, etc.
Beyond that a shield is not useless in pathfinder, and a bonus of anywhere from 2~9 points to your AC is not insubstantial, the only things that even give you a shield bonus besides actual shields are a ring of force shielding and the actual shield spell... the bonus of the first is a "mere" +2 and eats up a ring slot, while the second is generally not available to fighters, rangers, clerics, et. al.
Again I would point out the viability of using a shield is much greater now thanks to shield mastery too, even if it's not available until level 11, especially if you want more combat options other than swing, swing, swing.
I know this isn't the magic weapon section but I would suggest that an animated shield property should only work for 4 rounds just like a dancing weapon, and then stop functioning for 4 rounds.
Except armor does impede your ability to take more effective in up to three ways: Base movement being reduced, Armor check penalty, and run speed reduction. If your movement is reduced you aren't moving as far with a move action or charge meaning you might not get an attack in on a given round... the armor check penalty could make you fail an important balance check making you fall, lose an action, etc.
Light armor doesn't decrease movement, and if you buy medium armor in mithril (depending on changes of course), you still get your full movement. I'm sort of glazing over the armor check penalty, because I feel the movement penalty is infinitely more important.
Beyond that a shield is not useless in pathfinder, and a bonus of anywhere from 2~9 points to your AC is not insubstantial, the only things that even give you a shield bonus besides actual shields are a ring of force shielding and the actual shield spell... the bonus of the first is a "mere" +2 and eats up a ring slot, while the second is generally not available to fighters, rangers, clerics, et. al.
Still, most people have to choose between having better attacks or a better AC when thinking about a shield. Even if you're wearing a buckler, you're still getting a penalty to hit. If you're actually holding a shield, you're limited to a one-handed weapon.
Again I would point out the viability of using a shield is much greater now thanks to shield mastery too, even if it's not available until level 11, especially if you want more combat options other than swing, swing, swing.
I do agree with you that these feats make shield more attractive. As far as fighters are concerned, I think using a shield is a viable option with feats. Shield Mastery should be available sooner, probably more like 6th level.
In summary, giving the shield's AC bonus to touch AC is generally good. If you give it to fighters with all the shield feats, it could possibly be too good.
As a side note, where are the rules for shield bashing? Why aren't they in the special attacks section of the Combat chapter?
They are given in the shield section of the equipment guide becuase the only thing different between attacking with two weapons and attacking with a weapon and shield without feats is that you lose the shield bonus to AC. With feats (improved shield bash) you keep your AC bonus, which I think is important too... two weapon fighting with anywhere from a +2~+7 to AC still is nice too, even if you are using just a regular spiked heavy shield, at the expense of 1 extra feat (extra becuase fighting without two weapon fighting feats is just plain silly).
*************** Slight thread jack **********************
I would like to see fighters not have to meet the ability requirements for combat feats like combat expertise, and have the option to use the better of the two instead of the lesser of the two with power attack, combat expertise, et. al. These are expert warriors who practice over and over until they can do stuff dispite a slight disadavantage in stats. It also would help make them slightly less MAD (multi attribute dependant) which wouldn't be a bad thing.
A ring of protection +2 costs 8000g, and +3 runs 18,000g.
On the other hand, high-level Shields of Faith powered by Pearls of Power I is even cheaper than getting a Magic Vestment on your shield.
Comparing an Animated shield to a Ring of Protection is one thing, but if you bring Magic Vestment into the picture, you've gotta account for Shield of Faith as well.
Point being, shield bonuses to touch AC isn't as busted as JBuhlman mentioned, and if WotC managed to make shields deflecting touch attacks fit the flavor of a shield, then the Pathfinder designers can't really argue that it doesn't.
Personally, I stand by my previous unaddressed statement regarding the gap between AC and touch AC being way too large to make touch AC even function.
-Matt
|
A ring of protection +2 costs 8000g, and +3 runs 18,000g.On the other hand, high-level Shields of Faith powered by Pearls of Power I is even cheaper than getting a Magic Vestment on your shield.
Comparing an Animated shield to a Ring of Protection is one thing, but if you bring Magic Vestment into the picture, you've gotta account for Shield of Faith as well.
Point being, shield bonuses to touch AC isn't as busted as JBuhlman mentioned, and if WotC managed to make shields deflecting touch attacks fit the flavor of a shield, then the Pathfinder designers can't really argue that it doesn't.
Personally, I stand by my previous unaddressed statement regarding the gap between AC and touch AC being way too large to make touch AC even function.
-Matt
Good point, Matt. And for the record, I think that have part of the shield bonus added to one's touch AC should ONLY be based off the actual "shield" bonus - not included with enhancement, etc. At best adding 2 or 3 points to touch AC (barring feats that actually increse the effective shield bonus).
Robert
Shield of faith is a deflection bonus, not a shield bonus. Just making sure we all realise that.
Truthfully I think shield by themselves are where they should be. They can add anywhere from +1~+9 to your AC, can be used as a weapon, and it can be possible to two weapon fight while using one, either with a secondary weapon, or the shield itself as the secondary. These are very versitile items.
The idea that spell (or Improved Unarmed Strike) touch attacks don't provoke AoO is a bigger problem. If you are deliberately reaching close enough to touch your target will swat your hand away (and maybe literally). You could say that getting you hand attacked still activates the touch spell...
... and that walks you back around to treating it as a weapon, on the assumption that sane people will not normally do something that automatically makes them the victim of an unknown spell.
(Yes, it's the result of an abstraction. So is giving a guy with a longsword an AoO against someone attacking bare handed, but not against someone attacking with a dagger.)
No, not treating it as a weapon. Trading an AoO for a touch attack. If they defenders hits, it may trigger the touch effect. The defender might hack your arm off at the elbow, in which case your hand never touched him. If the defender slices at your hand you might withdraw it by reflex and not get hit, but also not complete the touch attack.
The guy with a dagger has something to parry or deflect the longsword. Yes, sufficiently greater weapon length should be an AoO criteria but that's too fine a detail for the game as designed.
No, not treating it as a weapon. Trading an AoO for a touch attack. If they defenders hits, it may trigger the touch effect. The defender might hack your arm off at the elbow, in which case your hand never touched him.
And this same logic doesn't apply to me going at somebody with a dagger instead? He's a lot less likely to accidentally stab himself on a dagger when swinging his sword than to make contact with my hand.
The guy with a dagger has something to parry or deflect the longsword.
First, this pretty clearly is not a factor in how the AoO for unarmed attack was designed, because somebody attacking with a gauntlet provokes an AoO despite having something that is arguably the equal of a dagger at parrying or deflecting. Second, you're assuming the spell energy of the held charge can't parry or deflect a longsword.
No, not treating it as a weapon. Trading an AoO for a touch attack. If they defenders hits, it may trigger the touch effect. The defender might hack your arm off at the elbow, in which case your hand never touched him.
And this same logic doesn't apply to me going at somebody with a dagger instead? He's a lot less likely to accidentally stab himself on a dagger when swinging his sword than to make contact with my hand.
It would apply. However, the DnD system in any of its incarnations ignores the advantage of differential reach in combat. Even though that is more significant than strength for striking or dexterity for avoiding a blow.
The guy with a dagger has something to parry or deflect the longsword.
First, this pretty clearly is not a factor in how the AoO for unarmed attack was designed, because somebody attacking with a gauntlet provokes an AoO despite having something that is arguably the equal of a dagger at parrying or deflecting.
Not so. While a gauntlet offers some protection for the hand, it is less effective protection than the hand not getting hit because the force of the blow is deflected by something (a dagger, in this case) held in the hand. Just try it sometime.
Second, you're assuming the spell energy of the held charge can't parry or deflect a longsword.
Yes, since that isn't a power listed in the effects of the spell (any spell that has been written up, to date).
|
|
I think I'm in favor of shield bonus applying to touch attacks, with two caveats (already mentioned, I think):
(1) Bucklers should not be included.
(2) The "animated" property needs to go away (my preference) or be bumped up to about +4 in value. Maybe even +5.
(I have a druid in my game who insists on using an animated shield. Mechanical brokenness arguments aside, how anybody can think the image of a shapeshifted velocirator with a shield hovering in front of it is somehow cool ... sheesh.)
I know that touch AC's are low, but they are supposed to be. Many spells require a touch attack and if that value goes up to high, those spells become worthless. I am also worried about this making enhancement bonuses on a shield far more valuable than that placed on armor, which would need to be accounted for in the pricing scheme.
Like I said, this is an interesting thought, but I think its ramifications are a bit wider and more challenging that it first appears.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Two comments having played live action role playing.
Shields are spell magnets not spell blockers.How could a METAL shield prevent someone from being effected by shocking grasp?
Perhas if you want a shield that blocks death rays it should be a magic item?
Well, one can approach the concept by degrees.
First case: Imagine you are hiding around the corner of a building, and only the corner of your cloak is visible to the caster. Supposing he makes the ranged touch, would a death ray (or whatever) that touches only the tip of your cloak, perhaps 2-3 feet from any part of your body, have any effect on you?
How much of a hit on something attached to you is required?
Second case: How much of a hit on your body is required? Suppose only your toe is visible, and a ray attack hits it. Shouldn't that, at the very least, grant a large circumstance bonus to saving throw?
Third case: Suppose you are behind a table which has been turned over onto its side. Does that provide effective cover against a ranged touch?
Fourth case: Now suppose you are actually leaning against the table, keeping it from falling over, but not supporting its weight.
Fifth case: Now suppose you are supporting its weight, using it as an improvised tower shield as you move.
These are the kind of questions the rules don't address.
I think these questions are covered:
1. You have concealment, obviously not total otherwise he couldn't get the shot off, but enough you have a miss chance, the caster gets over that he hits you, just like someone with another ranged weapon would.
2. A hit is a hit a touch attack is a touch attack, Did he beat the AC? then he hit you. Just like if a fighter gets above your AC everything else is narrative and fluff, it's nice to know and can add a face to the numbers, but the numbers are what count when determining game effects.
3. If you are completely hiding behind an overturned table you have total concealment, the spell caster can't hit you. He can target the table, or lob a burst spell to the side of the table but you still have total concealment just like if someone where shooting a crossbow at you.
4. Same as number three, if you are using it for total concealment, otherwise it's just a + 4 to your AC with a + 2 Max Dex mod. and a - 7 armor check penalty on everything becuase you aren't proficent in Table.
These are the basic mechanics of combat in D&D they don't change just becuase spells are suddenly involved.
Well, one can approach the concept by degrees.
First case: Imagine you are hiding around the corner of a building, and only the corner of your cloak is visible to the caster. Supposing he makes the ranged touch, would a death ray (or whatever) that touches only the tip of your cloak, perhaps 2-3 feet from any part of your body, have any effect on you?
How much of a hit on something attached to you is required?
Second case: How much of a hit on your body is required? Suppose only your toe is visible, and a ray attack hits it. Shouldn't that, at the very least, grant a large circumstance bonus to saving throw?
Third case: Suppose you are behind a table which has been turned over onto its side. Does that provide effective cover against a ranged touch?
Fourth case: Now suppose you are actually leaning against the table, keeping it from falling over, but not supporting its weight.
Fifth case: Now suppose you are supporting its weight, using it as an improvised tower shield as you move.
These are the kind of questions the rules don't address.
All those things are good points, but I dont think we need more rules to clear them up and bog down game play.
Thats for the DM to decide.
We dont need rules so the players can leverage against a DM we need guidelines so the DM can do their thing.
In MY game, corner of the cloak isnt going to work.
The table WILL protect you.
If you are attacking with an acid touch, grave touch ghooul touch, the shield will protect you from that touch.
But Shocking grasp and a Metal shield? Not only will it not protect you, you will be at the mercy of the plus 3 the caster gets as well (so a case where the shield is worse)
a wooden shield wont conduct the electricity, so it would protect you like the table.
Well, one can approach the concept by degrees.
First case: Imagine you are hiding around the corner of a building, and only the corner of your cloak is visible to the caster. Supposing he makes the ranged touch, would a death ray (or whatever) that touches only the tip of your cloak, perhaps 2-3 feet from any part of your body, have any effect on you?
How much of a hit on something attached to you is required?
Second case: How much of a hit on your body is required? Suppose only your toe is visible, and a ray attack hits it. Shouldn't that, at the very least, grant a large circumstance bonus to saving throw?
Third case: Suppose you are behind a table which has been turned over onto its side. Does that provide effective cover against a ranged touch?
Fourth case: Now suppose you are actually leaning against the table, keeping it from falling over, but not supporting its weight.
Fifth case: Now suppose you are supporting its weight, using it as an improvised tower shield as you move.
These are the kind of questions the rules don't address.
1. When would this ever come up in a game? Most characters take up a 5-foot square and their possessions. In any case, the point of touch armour is to make contact with the target, not their items, so it would not apply in this case
2. In theory yes. If I throw a spell at a person which weakens them (such as ray of enfeeblment) then I don't see why hitting a toe should make the spell any weaker than if I hit elsewhere. And if anyone says it does, then really, the rules should take into account where touch attacks actually connect (I.e, should the effect be stronger if you target a specific part, rules for targetting specific parts should be added).
3. Yes, you still gain cover. It's harder to hit a target with touch AC if you can't see them, which is the point of cover.
4&5. As long as you're just using it as cover it's fine. Attempting to gain a sheild bonus from it shouldn't work. This means that using it as a mean to osbcure vision works, but actualyl relaying on it to block attacks isn't a good idea.
Comparing an Animated shield to a Ring of Protection is one thing, but if you bring Magic Vestment into the picture, you've gotta account for Shield of Faith as well.
Just to save face, the reason I neglected to mention shield of faith was it is not a viable "all-day" buff, whereas greater magic vestment is, and shield of faith won't stack with your Ring of Protection.
It seems to me (and was suggested in an offhanded manner by a previous poster) that by far the simplest solution is to leave shields as-is (with regards to touch AC), and simply permit a touch-AC-enhancing shield feat.
With a greater number of feats available in PRPG, this becomes an easy solution to apply to PC and foe alike, without requiring a conversion/modification if it isn't desired.
However it happens I really hope shields get better in the final rules. I'd really like to increase the ratio of heavy armor + shield dudes running around.
First case: Imagine you are hiding around the corner of a building, and only the corner of your cloak is visible to the caster. Supposing he makes the ranged touch, would a death ray (or whatever) that touches only the tip of your cloak, perhaps 2-3 feet from any part of your body, have any effect on you?
1. When would this ever come up in a game? Most characters take up a 5-foot square and their possessions. In any case, the point of touch armour is to make contact with the target, not their items, so it would not apply in this case
So, that would mean if I attack and hit the wizard's hand as he reaches for the touch attack, it does not activate the touch attack. The tip of my sword is nearly 3' from my grip, and probably 5' from my body. Therefore, touch attack must provoke AoO. That's why the mechanic for touch attack (and even Improved Unarmed Strike) is broken. I can hurt you just by blocking your attack, and you are providing the opportunity.