Love for the one-handed warrior

[Brit O]

One truly easy fix and that I've always wondered is this:

Why are small shields offering the same AC bonus as bucklers? Who uses small shields when they could have a buckler?

Making a small shield AC +2 and a large shield AC +3 gives shields a pretty big boost, especially with shield specialization. That increases the Shield noshield gap to be at least +3 an higher, instead an slightly sad +2 difference.

I'd like to see feats that help the shield user avoid damage. I don't want new feats the improve their damage output.

[Kirth Gersen]

Brit O wrote:

I'd like to see feats that help the shield user avoid damage. I don't want new feats the improve their damage output.

Hear, hear!

[Robert Brambley]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Brit O wrote:

I'd like to see feats that help the shield user avoid damage. I don't want new feats the improve their damage output.

Hear, hear!

I think I've already been quite vocal about being in support of this. Thats the bonus the shields get in my game, and The fighter talents further expemplify the shield being for defense. :-)

Robert

[thelesuit]

Greaver Blade wrote:

I'm sort of confused about the whole idea that a sword and board character should do as much damage as a twohander or a dual wielder. Why should they? A bigger weapon, or more weapons gives you better offensive capability, period.

I hadn't meant to imply such.

Sword and Board should be about endurance, defense, and waiting for the right opportunity to leg or smash the elbow of your opponent.

Yes, two-handed weapons should reign supreme in the realm of dishing out the damage. And as in D&D combat the only way to win is by doing the most damage -- this probably isn't going to change any time soon.

Spoiler:

Sort of as an aside (and off topic), it would be interesting if there were more opportunities in melee to incapacitate your opponent or render him unable to continue in combat rather than just pile-drive him into the turf.

[Brit O]

I know what you're going for here, but the reason they haven't is it creates a mundane save or die type instance.

I've always been frustrated at the lack of rules about putting manacles or tying pinned foes. Then I DMed a few games and I realized that players do anything they think will help them win faster, and why shouldn't they. The book flat out tells us that the monsters should lose for characters to grow.

The problem comes from there being absolutely no way to make a reasonable but scalable targeted attack system. A low level, incapacitate foe ability seems far until at high levels the DC seems low. We could argue CMB might help relieve this scaling problem, but that doesn't change that wizards eventually have 10 less than fighters, and when the question is does the wizard keep his head you should side with the player. But which is the player? The wizard or the fighter? But if it works for the player, why not the monsters?

The best way to Rush Kill a monster (and one that makes sense) is monk tripping, rogue flanking, fighter and barbarian bashing, and the spellcasters piling on the debuffs and damage and Save or die spells.

Back to the OP:

I was just stating my position, then I suggested an idea. I didn't mean to steal anyones thunder from copying their post. Since I won't edit it, I'll just say that I'd like to change that line from what it was and what it was quoted as to "/sign"

To the person who said 'hear hear." thanks but I think the other guy wants it. ;)

Anyone think my shield AC changes are... anything? good, bad?

[thelesuit]

Brit O wrote:

Anyone think my shield AC changes are... anything? good, bad?

I have pretty much already implemented them. I like them so far.

I really like watching the uber-two-handed fighter in the party miss when he power attacks an NPC who is hiding behind his shield. It gives me a warm and snuggly feeling (as the GM).

CJ