To me, overemphasizing the mathematics and optimization of the d20 system is what is killing it, when one person wants to play a concept character, and another wants to play a super optimized min-max monster character, it becomes progressively difficult to challenge the party without slaughtering the non-optimized character.
It can happen with most any system, I always let my players in my face to face game know, if you can do it, so can the DM. Worst problem I had once was the Goliath Barbarian with the Monkey Grip Great Axes in 3.5...
It's funny because of my dislike of optimized characters, I tend to go with balanced characters, but during the Beta Playtest, I came up with a 20th level dwarf fighter that had the most insane AC ever... Aye GRUMBLE GROG!!
"Don't ye be looking at that fight with the dragon and giant tho!"
Hogarth destroyed Grumble's wings of flying before Grumble could do anything, which prompted Grumble to start carrying flying pots also....just in case
Whut? Underpowered? me? I kin kill me stuff real fast...
We did some high level playtests on the boards...The fighter did quite well, I'm actually more concerned with the rangers and monks. Rogues in Beta got some nice boosts, We'll have to see what happens with the other melee classes by gleening some info from the previews...
Shield still only has a 20 threat range...while other TWFs have either 19-20 or 18-20 threat ranges....
So arguing that sword & board or TH + animated shield become the default, may be something which metagamers do, but not every one is a metagamer...I like TWF the most...but then again, I also like balanced characters, I almost never play a character with a 20 stat at 1st level...but that's me I guess...
Yeah, that's why Grumble Grog has wings of flying...and back up potions of flying...of course during out level 18 playtest, the giant sundered his flimsy cloak and he was pretty much out of the fight, which is why he started carrying potions of flying....
And wow those are some whimpy demons/devils you GM there...I tend to think those types of demons/devils will stick around for at least a couple rounds, because they are overconfident...
OK OK , The Grumble Grog got carried away...Since any spell resistance item wouldn't be enough... to save against a 20th level wizard, especially with Spell Penetration/Greater Spell Penetration. The Fighter would have to get the drop on the Wizard...and Blind-fighting tends to help against some of those spells...and whirlwind attack should take care of those silly images...heh
The Toe-to-Toe part with the dragon is discussed above, both having a 45% chance to hit versus a red wyrm.
Now, no dragon or devil in their right mind would actually stand toe-to-toe with a fully decked out fighter...
See, for these kind of feats to me, I agree that I would think anyone should be able to take them at a base attack bonus. I would want a fighter to still have an advantage in these things though since feats really are supposed to be their domain.
Perhaps something like the reverse of the warblade's ability from book of nine swords. Warblades are able to take fighter only feats as if they were a fighter two levels lower then their class level. Maybe take any fighter only feat and add a +2 to what the fighters base attack bonus would be at that level(so weapon spec would need a BaB of +6), and give fighters a special quality where their base attack bonus is treated as 2 higher for qualifying for any feats?
I disagree, the Pfighter is already the weapons master, he gains the equivalent of weapon focus/specialization for dozens of weapons...
He has the best armor now...just look at Grumble's statblock...
Let's have a rumble with a 20th level Barbarian now...heh
With the removal of SoD spells, he'll tear a wizard apart in seconds, he can stand toe to toe with a dragon...or the greatest of CR20 Demons and Devils...
Fighters gaining inherent bonuses to both armor/weapons and most especially giving them auto-crits with increased critical multipliers sets fighters apart from all the other melee combatants.
They don't need Fighter Only Feats, because even a barbarian with Weapon Specialization isn't going to be As good as the Fighter...
In my game, those feats lose their Fighter only requirements, and become BAB requirements.
you gain AC from a shield (and you can also two weapon fight with it. with 1 feat you can maintain the AC bonus from the shield)
you gain extra attacks at a penalty with two weapons. (with 1 feat, you can gain an AC bonus with them.
you gain a small amount of additional dmg from a two handed weapon. (+1 with a 14-17 STR, +2 with 18-21 STR, and a whopping +3 with a 22-25 STR) in reality that isn't that much extra dmg...is it? (with a FEAT, you can double your STR bonus...for a SINGLE attack)
Those are the balances.
The single weapon/no shield is the only combo that needs fixing.
Drink a potion of enlarge. Grumblegrog then flies down and slashes a vicious slash down on the creature from the high ground. completely missing the creature..1d20+44=45 ROLLED A ONE!!!
Strangler, you're up...the scorpions can attack from the ceiling with their reach heh....
Did you look at Grumble Grog's stats? You're not giving up that much damage, for a LOT more protection...
FIFTY-TWO ARMOR CLASS...and it could go higher...potion of barkskin, drop into combat expertise stance...
Now I have.
Quite impressive.
Some errors:
You have added your +5 enhancement from your axe to both your AC and your +hit/damage. You have to pick one or the other (or divide it to some of one and some of the other). You can't be +5 on both.
Both the Amulet of Natural Armor and the Potion of Barkskin give an enhancement bonus to natural armor and therefore they don't stack, per the description of Barkskin. You didn't actually include that in your 52 AC, but you did list it as a footnote to get even more AC, but it won't stack.
Now some notes:
Your dodge bonus is only against one foe, so it isn't always 52.
Pathfinder dodge isn't only against 1 opponent...
His level 9 build was actually pretty good and his level 15 build almost soloed a horned devil...read our High level playtests...
ACTF:52/23/40 (mobility +4,combat expertise +2, giants +4,defending+5)
That line of extra modifiers are actually in addition to the 52/33/40 They aren't included in that main line...
that includes the defending...
These are the base enhancements to AC.
(10+8armor+5enh,+2/+5shield+5dex+4Armor training,+2 dodge,+5Natural, +5deflection, +1insight)
Dodge (Combat)
You have mastered a defensive stance that allows to you easily react to your opponents.
Prerequisite:Dex 13
Benefit:As a swift action, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn. If you have 10 or more ranks in Acrobatics, the dodge bonus increases to +2.
+33 to hit while the AC rises to 57, is a fair trade...That means I can still hit these creatures..and they still have a chance to miss me...unlike that 2 handed weapon guy that they auto hit...
Pit Fiend, AC40 +30 ATK (hits on a 20)
Wyrm Red Dragon AC42 +48 ATK (hits on 9+)
I could full attack with 4 axe/2 shield normally, so I could drop 1 attack from each of those...(but for the playtest, which is what I was testing it for, I didn't set-up my statblock that way.)
His AC is 52...57 with defending...improved vital strike of a two-handed sword (6d6 = 6-36) isn't that much better than Improved vital strike for a dwarven axe (3d10 = 3-30)...
This character was optimized with purchases for a high-level playtest...he's a monster...nuff-said...
But back to topic. I agree with most of the ideass above on how to boost felt "effectiveness" of the weapon & shield combo, but in my eyes the original thread title wasn't answered satisfyingly yet:
Is there any viable solution to realize above mentioned requests, i.e. sacrificing damage output for improved combat manoeuvring or improved defencive abilities?
I'd really like to see my worries of "twf = every power gamer's favourite combo" being proved wrong and see the w&s combo have their own (rulewise) reason of existence...
Günther
The long answer is already in this thread. All this discussion to provide houserules and new feats/mechanics to supplement the failed sword+shield build is quite revealing.
The short answer is: No.
The defensive sword+shield combo doesn't exist in the rules. The amount of damage output you sacrifice is not compensated by the little boost in AC.
Over the long haul, doing less damage means your enemies live longer and damage you more, and without sufficient AC compensation to mitigate that extra damage, you end up taking more damage per fight.
Which means you end up requiring more healing per fight.
Which means you end up draining the party's healing resources faster.
Which means your party spends less time rescuing damsels and more time snoozing at the duegeon entrance.
Did you look at Grumble Grog's stats? You're not giving up that much damage, for a LOT more protection...
FIFTY-TWO ARMOR CLASS...and it could go higher...potion of barkskin, drop into combat expertise stance...
Grumble Grog is coated in flaming bits of stone...he shakes it off and flies back up locates the target and flies prepares to charge. Drinks his potion of Divine Favor.
Grumble grog, seeing the elemental rise from the ground, turns and hurls himself off the platform, bringing his axe down in a cleaving strike.1d20+38=53
Grumble Grog activates the haste in his boots and hustles up to the doors, as his hand grasps the handles, a stroke of lightning leaps from the door traveling down the corridor.
REFLEX SAVE DC22 for all. Lilianna should have checked the door for traps.
Grumble fails his reflex save, taking the full 34 points of dmg. (14 after the temporary heroism points.)
Grumble grog laments about his cloak and hopes he gets enough treasure off the stupid flying horse to pay for a ring of flying...stupid cloak...just the loss of that one item took Grumble out of the fight...
Hi, I was just checking in on your play-testing exuberance :-),
And I thought I'd mention about Vital Strike and Crits:
Beta wrote:
Any other attacks that hit as part of this full-attack action deal additional damage. Roll the damage dice for all such attacks twice, but do not multiply damage bonuses fromStrength, weapon abilities, such as flaming, or precision-based damage, such as sneak attack. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
So basically, Vital Strike DOESN'T interact with Criticals AT ALL (like Flaming weapons, more or less)
You should resolve Critical damage normally, and THEN add an extra amount equal to base damage with no modifiers. Yes, a Monk wrote this Feat :-) The text could really explain this more directly, but who knows what the Bull-Man has done with it by now...
That's how I worked Grumble's vital strikes, I even split it out separately for criticals...all you add is the extra damage one time.
like this:
+4 Dwarven War Axe +36/+31 1d10+2d10vital+16+1d6 electrical (19-20/x3)+2d10 electrical on critical
Critical: 3d10+2d10vital+48+1d6electrical+2d10electrical
basically the vital strike dice are front-loaded and not affected by critical hits to begin with.
OOOOO he's gonna be mad at you!! say good bye to your little cloak! heh...nice bleed attack btw! Now would be the time to break out one of those Book of Iron Might maneuvers and attack his flight abilities..oh well.
what's the penalty for throwing a non-throwing weapon? -4?
Grumble has combat reflexes (dex +5), So unless the Giant has improved sunder I get an AoO on the giant, and if I do dmg it will interrupt the sunder attempt...
Sorry, Grumble -- Improved Sunder is a prerequisite for the Blackguard prestige class.
Very well....
GROOOOooooooooooooog
"OOF"
Right ya Bugger!!!
good manuever, btw in my game, giant fighters get +4 CMB against giant's also. Makes perfect sense to me.
Grumble has combat reflexes (dex +5), So unless the Giant has improved sunder I get an AoO on the giant, and if I do dmg it will interrupt the sunder attempt...
