My answer... a bit of both.
Me and my good friend had this scuffle. He wanted to house rule that shields, when the target is flat-footed, grant no bonus to AC, since it's an active defense and while flat footed one is slow on reaction.
His example: "when you back-stab someone, he will not be able to put his shield upfront".
And 3 hours later I kinda understood, a bit, what he was saying, but still, flat-footed is not paralyzed. As stated, in the rules, he is just "unable to react normally to the situation". He is flat on his feet, he can't run or jump, or evade what is coming for him, as well as he might - be he ready. But he could lift his shield to stop a dagger coming right into his groin. Not step away or dodge, that's a lot of muscle reflexes.
Still, there is the problem of "awareness". What if the opponent you about to attack, is fully unaware of you, you got full invisibility, total ninja, or the opponent is a drowsy guard that had a bit too much ale and whose peripheral vision can't and will not register. What then? To me, it appears totally logical to forgo the shield bonus.
Still, this logic opens windows... a totally concealed rogue could insta-kill lots and lots of people using his ring of invisibility, by targeting "unaware" peoples helmet-less heads with a hatchet. Even with all the called shot penalties... it's just a DC 10 now, "cuz' no armor on the head".
Or maybe a new condition is needed. A kind of... Unaware flat-footed. When the opponent is unaware of the attacker but is not helpless.
Now, your thoughts, comrades. Shield, do they or don't they, or should they, or they should not? Why and when?
My answer... a bit of both.
Me and my good friend had this scuffle. He wanted to house rule that shields, when the target is flat-footed, grant no bonus to AC, since it's an active defense and while flat footed one is slow on reaction.
His example: "when you back-stab someone he will not be able to put his shield upfront".[/QUTOE]
There is no facing in Pathfinder. This is a specific change from the various paleolithic editions. Having experienced both, facing (IMHO) causes more problems than it solves.
Having said that, it sounds like he's the Game Master. If he wants to rule that armor has no effect when flat-footed, then that's his prerogative.
Rules-as-written, he's wrong. Rules-as-intended, he's also wrong. Rules-as-he-wants-to-run-the-game-at-his-table,....
I personally think shields shouldn't contribute to flat-footed AC. Put me in the camp of "shields are useful when actively wielded".
I also think that shields do not contribute enough to AC as an actively wielded protective gear, but that another story...
I personally think shields shouldn't contribute to flat-footed AC. Put me in the camp of "shields are useful when actively wielded".
I also think that shields do not contribute enough to AC as an actively wielded protective gear, but that another story...
Doesn't this mean a called shot to a helmet-less head is just a 10 in difficulty for a flat-footed opponent?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is the house rule forum, let me propose what we use at our table:
First off, we treat shields as counting against touch(because some energies they block, others they at least conceal some of the body to confound ethereal type folks), but not flatfooted. Whether totally unaware or not, flatfooted implies that the enemy got to move before the target could. And the only logical way a shield could be useful is if it was the front or a single side of the body, and none of that seems like a logical place for a backstabbing type.
Just as medium and heavy armors got a boost, we did the same for shields excepting bucklers(always hated that there was literally no use to a light shield other than slightly cheaper when compared to a buckler).
So bucklers are +1, lights are +2, heavies are +3, and towers are +5(not bad considering that if GMs would properly enforce the -2 to attacks, they'd be less appealing).
To add an active element to shields, we stole the parry ability of certain things like the duelist to represent a shield block.
As an immediate action(thus absorbing the swift action for the round), when you would be struck, you may make an attack roll against the attackers AC, adding the shield's enhancement bonus. If it is equal or greater, you deflect the attack but the shield takes the damage instead. If an attack destroys the shield, the excess transfers to the wielder. We ruled that feats that add to shield AC such as shield focus and snapping turtle style also add to the deflect attempt.
After some play-testing, we have found that typically the shield blocking becomes more useful after the first few levels(since a heavily armored and shielded character has a higher AC than his level can hope to attack), and we now see a more balanced spread of defender types vs power attacker and two weapon fighter types. Before our games were dominated by 2-handers and heavy damage dealers because as written, shield builds are rarely anywhere near as good.
These rules have helped turn shields into a viable option from low levels all the way into higher levels. And I am glad to see them get more use.
By RAW, shields apply when you are flat-footed.
There is no 'backstab' in PF, because there is no facing. You are never behind an opponent in a combat situation.
There is also no targeting in PF. You can't declare that you're going to stick someone in the head or neck (well, you CAN, but it will have no additional effect).
That said ... if he wants to houserule this (and I would hope he doesn't, as this opens up all kinds of crazy combat imbalances), that's his business.
I personally think shields shouldn't contribute to flat-footed AC. Put me in the camp of "shields are useful when actively wielded".Doesn't this mean a called shot to a helmet-less head is just a 10 in difficulty for a flat-footed opponent?
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Helmets (or gauntlets) don't contribute to AC individually, or else are part of a suit or armour's AC bonus. They exist as separate entities only insofar as they can be enchanted as magic items of their own, but otherwise they don't grant a AC bonus by RaW.
As for called shots, I'm not familiar enough with those rules to know how they interact with AC bonuses that do (or don't) contribute to flat-footed AC specifically.
|
shields are neither fully active nor passive.
but, for simplicity (over-simplicity by necessity), i like toascend's proposal above (it's genius!):
Shields, different than armor, modify Touch AC, not Flat-footed AC.
i also like the Block action, which ordinarily would seem unfair, except that the shield itself takes the damage (if it can). nice. i would add that only a proficient user can do this, and, consider having it 'cost' an attack or opportunity rather than an immediate action. thoughts?
i would keep the bonuses as-written though, myself. shifting to the "Touch and Block" paradigm is cool enough.
I thought about the attack of opportunity, rain. The issue there is someone with combat reflexes could block all day long til their shield breaks, in which case, enchanted adamantine becomes a no-brainer.
By forcing the immediate action, it limits a shield block to once per round by costing that precious swift.
I have been playtesting it, and it comes out very well. It also suits very well as a counter to the typical big ass sword, massive 2-hand power attack swing.
The increase to the shield AC bonuses were an arbitrary move we did to make shields more tempting. In 3.5 light armor and high dex was the way to go, so to slightly tempt more armors into use, mediums and heavys got a +1 bump in pathfinder. I followed the same logic with shields, hoping to see stuff other than bucklers get use.
I think the block and touch aspects are what matter there, and they have made shields much much more fun to use. It also gives warriors an incentive to shield up against those pesky spellcasters. I found that before, nobody and I mean nobody, would pick shield and sword over two weapon fighting or two handed fighting.
Which if you look at most of medieval history, sword and board was the far more effective typical route to go. I still find that the 2 handed power attacking greatsword folks still get rolled up as frequently if not more so still, but the gap is closing!
On a separate note, i'd like to add that I change rules to add better verisimilitude and/or ease and fun of play.
Having a shield add to flatfooted defense rips the suspension of belief apart to me. Ditto with that idiotic concealment stops sneak attack rule. (it's dark, and i'm sneaking, can't stab you anywhere squishy now. Shucks).
Shields are held in someone's field of vision for the purpose of holding it up when swung at. When the arm is at rest the shield drops to the side, meaning that only 1 of the 4 cardinal directions of a combatant's body is even remotely benefiting from it. If the shield is resting on someone's back, then by the rules it's not even equipped to begin with and still provides nothing.