One thing that I think is really lacking from 3.5e is respect for shields. I would propose a few things to change this.
1. Shield bonus applies to touch AC. A shield is not a static item and as long as the user is not flat-footed (surprised) it should be considered a viable defense against touch attacks. It is not "part of the body" but rather an item that is wielded. I would also NOT apply shield bonuses to flat-footed AC.
2. A series of shield mastery feats that increase the bonus to AC that shields provide.
3. A general increase in the viability of shields (this is stolen from someone else's thread, if I could find it I would credit them with this idea). Light shield +2, Heavy shield +3, Tower Shield (which requires everyone but fighters to take a feat to use) +5.
Historically the shield was a warrior's best friend. It enabled him to survive combat and provided a safe refuge. I am really tired of seeing the grid dominated by two-handed weapon fighters when it should rightfully belong to those with "sword and board".
CJ
Me too! In every history book that I have read, most warriors who used a sword also used a shield. In addition, remember the movie 300. The shield was an integral part of their survival. ~thinks and pulls 300 out to watch later~
Yeah, but two-handed weapons fighters were pretty scary and lethal - at least as long as someone didn't get inside their striking radius. With an up-close melee situation those 2h weapons didn't do you any good. Question is: wouldn't you want to change this aspect as well if you vote for an upgrade of shields?
Just a thought.
But overall I feel that you have a valid point there. I too would like to see shields getting a better "value for money".
Yes, one cannot discount the lethality of two-handed weapon fighters. In combat they would still need to get past the shield -- and that is something that is not well represented by shields in D&D -- they stood between the fighter and his opponent. Consequently shields took a lot of damage and needed constant repair and/or replacement.
I'm not sure how much of the D&D combat system I would want to revamp (and still make it mostly backwards compatible). I mostly want to make sword & shield a viable option for fighters without having them resort to shield bash via the two-weapon fighting route.
My understanding (possibly flawed) of the historical response to two-handed weapons was the invention of plate armors that deflected blows away from the wearer. Someone with an actual medieval history degree please correct me if I'm wrong. Weapon and armor development through the medieval period was a chain of attacks and defensive counter measures. I'm not sure we can hope to capture much of this in a game with mechanics as simple as D&D.
CJ
Feats in the PHB II, shield specialization and shield ward, mimic what the OP suggested-+1 to shield AC and allow the shield bonus to be used for touch AC, and vs bull rush, trip, disarm, trip and grapple.
|
Idea #1: Let shields add to your CMB maneuver defense (makes it harder to be tripped/bull rushed/etc)
Idea #2: Add a feat chain that lets you add your shield bonus (plus magic) to touch AC, or give an opposed roll to block an incoming strike (BAB + shield bonus + feat bonus + 1d20= AC vs 1 attack/round)
Idea #3: Add a feat/chain of feats that let shield users intercept attacks against adjacent allies, or make shield walls.
One possibility would be a Shield Expertise feat...
Shield Expertise
Prerequisite: Combat Expertise, Shield Proficiency
Benefit: When using Combat Expertise to fight defensively, in addition to the Dodge bonus, the number You subtract from Your BAB increases Your Shield bonus to Armor Class. The increase to Your Shield bonus cannot exceed the non-magical AC bonus of a shield of that size PLUS the number of attacks You can make when making a full attack.
Normal: Combat Expertise grants only a Dodge bonus to AC, it does not increase Your Shield bonus.
Special: Shield Expertise can be selected by a Fighter as a bonus feat.
|
There is a system that I am experimenting with which addresses some of this. I was planning on using it for an arena themed game. The basic premise is this. Have your players roll a d20 for a ‘shield block’ when they are attacked. They add their BAB and the shield’s armor bonus. If the number they roll is equal to or higher that the attackers final attack roll, after all bonuses are added, then the blow is absorbed by the shield instead. This can be done a number of times per round as a character has attacks, based on BAB. The first block is with the highest BAB and the second block of the round is with the second BAB, and so on. Also, the shield bonus does not count towards a character’s armor class. A nat 20 on a shield block always blocks, even a nat 20 attack roll. To save time simply have a player roll their shield block at the same time the attacker rolls the attack. If they wait then the character has chosen not to actively block the blow. No trying to see if the blow gets through first before trying to block.
If you want to make it even more interesting then have the attacker still roll damage, including critical, and calculate the hardness and hitpoints of various shields so that when a shield blocks a blow the damage is done to the shield. Thus making it possible to completely destroy your opponent’s shield. All of the rules for this are currently in the DMG, you just need to write a few notes for each of the shields in the PHB.
I’ve seen something similar in several different systems, GURPS comes to mind, and it works really well without slowing combat down. I think that it would make an excellent variant rule if nothing else.
|
One fix I thought for the shield was doubleing the bonus gained from combat expertise, like two handed weapons do for power attack.
This might be a little powerful (consider x1.5?) at the top end however as you could be getting a +10 bonus or more with improved combat expertise...
As for the historical argument, I believe that shields lost popularity as better armour became available, freeing up the hand to use a two handed weapon, which was in turn better at damaging armoured opponents... This is more compatible with Damage Reduction rules. I agree though that D&D combat is an abstract thing with limited reference to "real" combat, so in reality we are just looking for a balanced combat mechanic
I like that idea Wiglaf.
In order to keep things simple, I think I'd allow a player to block an attack by expending Attacks of Opportunity.
I would say, allow a player to sacrifice attacks for each attempted block, but that runs the risk of someone cheesing-it-up by never using the full-attack option anyway. Also, the idea behind AoOs is related to situational awareness and I think that fits the idea of blocking better. This also adds an additional tactical element to combat: whether it is better to give (making an AoO) or to receive (making a block).
When such a block situation arrises, I would resolve it with the CMB mechanism.
|
I like the idea of shields countering attacks. This just "works." Especially by using AoO for it. You still get to attack, but can block one or more blows also.
I also like the idea of the shield AC adding to CMB. Imagine trying to grapple a guy with a large shield as he just keeps bouncing you back...
So, would you combine the two? Someone is trying to grapple you, would you add your shield AC to your CMB AND use an AoO to counter? Seems a bit much there.
I would not add shield AC to CMB for countering Bullrush though. Even with the shield up, it wouldn't stop someone from pushing you back. Might even make it easier for them to do so, giving them something easier to push against.
With regards to the shield block, I'd use it to counter normal attacks. IMO a feat would be in order to gain the benefit of adding Your Shield bonus to resist various CMB tactics such as grappling.
To support this argument, consider the phalanx fight style used by the Spartans in "300". I would say that their well-practiced shield techniques to resist charges and bull-rush attempts is definitely indicative of the sort of training that is represented by a feat.
Just as the Close Quarters Fighting feat from Complete Warrior allows a unique way of countering grapples, I'd say such a feat would be appropriate for using a shield to similar effect.
I wrote the following feat as a suggestion for inclusion to Kingdom of Kalamar products. It might be a good solution to the shield problem.
Shield Parry (General)
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency, Shield Specialization
Benefit: As an immediate action, allows the defender to actively parry with her shield. For each incoming melee attacks the character rolls an opposed attack. The defneder can parry one attack per round per the number of attacks they get per round. For example, a 6th level gets 2 shield parries per roound. If the defender beats the attackers attack roll then the attack is converted to a Sunder attack on the shield.
Normal: A shield adds a shield bonus to the overall armor class of the defender.
Special: A fighter may take Shield Parry as a bonus feat.
The prerequisite of Shield Specilization would have to be changed due it being a feat in the Players Guide to the Sovereign Lands.
Doug
|
|
Thank you Laithoron and Krome,
Putting it as a use of AoO is a great idea. I hadn’t thought of that. To be clear though, a person wouldn’t have to give up attacks to block with a shield in my original idea, the blocks would be in addition to the attacks they get per round. Still, I think I like trading an AoO for a shield block better.
Speaking solely for myself I’d rather not see this connected to a new feat but instead made to be part of the Shield Proficiency feat. Still, I like the idea of using other feats to allow you to use the Shield Bonus or Shield Block Check with different combat maneuvers.
+1 Wiglaf's and Doug's ideas.
If you wanted a static AC bonus why not have the AC provided by a shield increase with BAB. For instance a heavy shield would grant 2 AC + 1 per 4 BAB. A Light shield grants 1 AC + 1 per 5 BAB because it has a smaller area to block with.
I like some of these ideas, but don't forget about animated shields. Those pretty much kill the value of using a 1 hander and shield when you can just use a 2 hander and an animated shield.
Please Pathfinder, get rid of animated shields!
|
|
I like some of these ideas, but don't forget about animated shields. Those pretty much kill the value of using a 1 hander and shield when you can just use a 2 hander and an animated shield.
Please Pathfinder, get rid of animated shields!
But with some of these feat options, you wouldn't be able to actively block with an animated shield (at least as a DM I'd rule it so).
|
|
One thing that I think is really lacking from 3.5e is respect for shields. I would propose a few things to change this.
1. Shield bonus applies to touch AC. A shield is not a static item and as long as the user is not flat-footed (surprised) it should be considered a viable defense against touch attacks. It is not "part of the body" but rather an item that is wielded. I would also NOT apply shield bonuses to flat-footed AC.
2. A series of shield mastery feats that increase the bonus to AC that shields provide.
3. A general increase in the viability of shields (this is stolen from someone else's thread, if I could find it I would credit them with this idea). Light shield +2, Heavy shield +3, Tower Shield (which requires everyone but fighters to take a feat to use) +5.
CJ
That was me. I have been very vocal about the need for some lovin to be thrown to the sword and boarders.
The Deft Shield feat tree was just a good implementation - since you need TWF feat (15 DEX) which is counter-intuitive to someone who really needs to take advantage of a shield - not to mention even after taking all those feats, you still lost the AC from the shield if you miss with the shield bash.
The feats need to help protect better with the shield first and foremost, and any options to bash with it needs to be more viable of an option.
Robert
I like some of these ideas, but don't forget about animated shields. Those pretty much kill the value of using a 1 hander and shield when you can just use a 2 hander and an animated shield.
Please Pathfinder, get rid of animated shields!
Oh come on Eric. There is nothing cooler than a levitating shield whizzing about deflecting blows from thine enemies! Tally ho! If you don't like them, get rid of them in your game. Don't expect Pathfinder to remove them.
|
|
In 2nd ed, there were parry rules. they were unbalancing. 3rd ed did away with all parrying rules for this reason.
Me and my group of long-term players have tried a MYRIAD of ways of using shields for "parrying" in 3rd edition.
We have yet to find a way to make them fair - and we've tried a lot - including all of the suggestions here (or derivations of them).
Simply stated: to parry an attack fully is simply overpowering and makes the shield TOO good of an option compared to everyone else.
We have however tried using the shield to grant Damage Reduction. (equal to the Shield bonus).
That is one way of making the shield have its effectiveness truly shined!
I play the MMO of Dungeons and Dragons online, and i almost always play a tough sword and boarder paladin type. I love standing in the doorways with my shield up blocking for the party. Thats an awesome feature - which works in a MMO when theres literally dozens of attacks coming every second - but just no way to have it balanced in the 3.5 combat mechanics. (in DDO, there's a score given to ones "blocking DR" value that means thats how much damage it absorbs while shield blocking from every hit - it a good tactic if you have archers and wizards behind you blasting the foes in the room, while you keep them at bay with your shield up).
And Krome: working on it. Defender is next after Juggernaut.
Robert
Me and my group of long-term players have tried a MYRIAD of ways of using shields for "parrying" in 3rd edition.
We have yet to find a way to make them fair - and we've tried a lot - including all of the suggestions here (or derivations of them).
Robert,
We're currently experimenting with just such a feat:SHIELD-PARRY
Prerequisite: Shield proficiency, BAB 6+
Benefit: Each round, when using the full attack option and holding a shield, you may choose to hold one of your iterative attacks (not using it on your turn). Any time before your next turn, when you would otherwise be struck by a melee attack, you may use your held attack as an immediate action to parry with your shield. Roll the attack as if it were a shield bash, inclusing all modifiers for off-hand weapon use and iterative attacks. Your attack roll becomes your AC against the incoming attack, if it is better than your existing AC. This counts as an attack of opportunity.
If you've already tried that, I'd be very interested in hearing of your experiences, so that we don't need to re-invent the wheel.
|
|
Me and my group of long-term players have tried a MYRIAD of ways of using shields for "parrying" in 3rd edition.
We have yet to find a way to make them fair - and we've tried a lot - including all of the suggestions here (or derivations of them).Robert,
We're currently experimenting with just such a feat:SHIELD-PARRY
Prerequisite: Shield proficiency, BAB 6+
Benefit: Each round, when using the full attack option and holding a shield, you may choose to hold one of your iterative attacks (not using it on your turn). Any time before your next turn, when you would otherwise be struck by a melee attack, you may use your held attack as an immediate action to parry with your shield. Roll the attack as if it were a shield bash, inclusing all modifiers for off-hand weapon use and iterative attacks. Your attack roll becomes your AC against the incoming attack, if it is better than your existing AC. This counts as an attack of opportunity.If you've already tried that, I'd be very interested in hearing of your experiences, so that we don't need to re-invent the wheel.
No, this is something that I haven't tried - similar though.
Since you're "holding an attack as a readied action" why does it count as the AoO for the guy?
The similar variation we tried was to roll damage for the shield bash and it simply absorbed that much damage from the incoming blow.
But by allowing the attack roll to be the AC, that is something I didnt try. It sounds interesting. I'm curious how that works out for you. Interested in hearing playtesting results.
There should be a prerequisite IMO for a shield based feat: my suggestion: Improved Shield Bash (PHB).
Robert
1. Since you're "holding an attack as a readied action" why does it count as the AoO for the guy?
2. There should be a prerequisite IMO for a shield based feat: my suggestion: Improved Shield Bash (PHB).
1. It was a fix for abuse from some sort of Dragon magazine "Riposte"-type feat that lets you make an immediate attack of opportunity against someone who swings against you in melee and misses. I didn't want a shield-parry/immediate counterattack combo to be possible without also taking Combat Reflexes. Do you think that's too harsh of me?
2. I agree, and might add that.
I'll be sure to let you know how it works. The only test so far has been with the paladin character in "Spire of Long Shadows," and that's not exactly an ideal playtest for anything except horror and death. (We loved it, BTW.)
Got to say guys - loving some of the ideas on this thread. :D
I think a shield 'roll' will slow down the game too much, and could rapidly descend into stupidity with multi-armed races/monsters. Doing something with AoO is a master stroke, but I fear it will have too much of an effect on the established system to make it into Pathfinder. However, it's going to be in Pathfinder 2nd Edition - I just know it! ;p
I'd vote for shields granting DR. It's simple, we all know how it works and it makes sense 'in game'. Even if it was a Fighter/Combat feat, it'd be a most welcome option. I may even have to turn this into a house rule.
Many thanks!
Peace,
tfad
I have house rules animated shields out of my game and will continue to do so if Pathfinder keeps them in the game. As written you could even make 'off hand' attacks with an animated shield while whacking people with your greatsword. Not to mention the parrying defense or DR being discussed in this thread.
I'm all for making sword and board a viable alternative to THF, but I don't want to see THF get even better through the use of an animated shield.
I have house rules animated shields out of my game and will continue to do so if Pathfinder keeps them in the game.
I also hate animated shields. Maybe one artifact animated shield would be cool, or maybe if the property were priced like a +5 (or higher) bonus. Having them all over strikes me as being annoying and silly.
I think Svipdag's idea of having Combat Expertise be the mirror of Power Attack is a simple and clean way to accomplish the task. If PA is going to provide a double bonus to Two-Handed weapons, let CE provide double bonus to shield users.
|
|
1. It was a fix for abuse from some sort of Dragon magazine "Riposte"-type feat that lets you make an immediate attack of opportunity against someone who swings against you in melee and misses. I didn't want a shield-parry/immediate counterattack combo to be possible without also taking Combat Reflexes. Do you think that's too harsh of me?2. I agree, and might add that.
I'll be sure to let you know how it works. The only test so far has been with the paladin character in "Spire of Long Shadows," and that's not exactly an ideal playtest for anything except horror and death. (We loved it, BTW.)
Just do away with the dragon mag riposte. That would solve it. :-)
Thanx; will be looking forward to what you have to say about it.
DR is I think the easiest way to go to make shield really have their due. Look for that to be a talen of the "Defender" sword and boarder I'm doing (Think Tank Fighters) thread.
Robert
Yeah, Riposte may have to go; it's way too good a feat.
My issue with DR is that it steps on the later fighter DR class feature, and the barbarian's DR as well. Unless of course we're re-doing both of those classes? I notice some excellent fighter ideas on the one thread...
Alright, color me amused...
I just saw the "Sinister things await beneath the waves" header on the main Paizo page and thus discovered Nick Logue's "Indulgence" series. So I click-thru to view the products when what should I find but a $1.50 download called "Art of the Duel".
Well, since one of my favorite characters is a swashbuckling bard, I figured I'd buy it to check out his OGL treatment of rapiers and fencing.
It would seem that Nick Logue thought to use AoOs in concert with the act of parrying attacks, just like I'd suggested earlier...
Am I chagrinned that he thought of it first? Nah! It was actually kind of gratifying to see that a pro like him thought it could work too. :)
I could easily see how some of the feats in that PDF could be adapted to Sword & Board without too much trouble. It's Open Game Content too so it should work with PFRPG even if it doesn't get included directly. For $1.50, some of You other S&B guys might want to have a look for Yourselves...
That one's in my shopping cart; I just haven't hit "purchase" yet.
|
Contributor
|
Alright, color me amused...
I just saw the "Sinister things await beneath the waves" header on the main Paizo page and thus discovered Nick Logue's "Indulgence" series. So I click-thru to view the products when what should I find but a $1.50 download called "Art of the Duel".
Well, since one of my favorite characters is a swashbuckling bard, I figured I'd buy it to check out his OGL treatment of rapiers and fencing.
It would seem that Nick Logue thought to use AoOs in concert with the act of parrying attacks, just like I'd suggested earlier...
Am I chagrinned that he thought of it first? Nah! It was actually kind of gratifying to see that a pro like him thought it could work too. :)
I could easily see how some of the feats in that PDF could be adapted to Sword & Board without too much trouble. It's Open Game Content too so it should work with PFRPG even if it doesn't get included directly. For $1.50, some of You other S&B guys might want to have a look for Yourselves...
Nick Logue is a brilliant game designer, but I feel obligated to mention that it was me who designed that puppy! Which just means that I get to be the one to say Thank you for your kind words.
And you'd be surprised at how many people had been/have been working on similar concepts to various parts of that little pdf.
Thanks!
Craig Shackleton,
The Rambling Scribe
EDIT: Personally, I'd love to write a sword and shield article like 'Art of the Duel.' My earliest experience with historical combat involved sword and shield, and it is still dear to my heart. I've been doing a lot of research and interpretation of a manual from ~1300 AD (RA manuscript I:33) that deals exclusively with sword and shield (technically buckler, but more like a D&D light shield).
|
|
Alright, color me amused...
I just saw the "Sinister things await beneath the waves" header on the main Paizo page and thus discovered Nick Logue's "Indulgence" series. So I click-thru to view the products when what should I find but a $1.50 download called "Art of the Duel".
I saw that ad this morning, too. I intended to buy it just to see what I can glean from it and compare some of that with the swashbuckler-fighter talents I've come up with on the Think Tank Fighters thread.
Since I love swashbucklers (it one of only two "kits" from 2nd edition I ever enjoyed playing), I would love to get the type of high-adrenalin sword-play represented into a D&D game again.
Robert
There is a point I would like to make regarding sheilds and armours. Now yes, most warriors relied on sword and sheilds, but one thing I don't think many are taking into account here is that few outside the rich actaully wore full-plate. In fact, a fair portion of armies lacked armour all together in some regiments.
In all honestly, I think that if full-plate armour was readily avalible to every adventurer (which it is in D'n'D), there would be less demand for sheilds. As it stands, it seems internally consistant to me.
|
|
There is a point I would like to make regarding sheilds and armours. Now yes, most warriors relied on sword and sheilds, but one thing I don't think many are taking into account here is that few outside the rich actaully wore full-plate. In fact, a fair portion of armies lacked armour all together in some regiments.
In all honestly, I think that if full-plate armour was readily avalible to every adventurer (which it is in D'n'D), there would be less demand for sheilds. As it stands, it seems internally consistant to me.
True enough. And at 1500 gp for Full Plate, not everyone in D&D can afford it either - PCs at level 3 and beyond maybe, and important NPCs.
99.9% of the population cannot afford it for sure.
Then again, 99.9% of the world doesn't hunt dragons, enter beholder infested dungeons, and root out Glabrezu worshipping cults in order to make their money, either.
Thankfully, for these stalwart heroes, such equipment DOES exist and is not only needed, but their use is warranted. And while thanks to the fullplate being available to those who want it and need it making shields slightly less of a neccessity, it still doesn't completely diminish the need for a good shield by some, nor the desire by some to truly learn to use it well.
Robert
|
|
I had liked some ruled from Unearthed Arcana that treated armor as DR rather than AC bonuses and kept the shield as AC bonus. It made sense. The shield kept from getting really at all. But the armor meant you were hit, it just protected you from the damage inflicted.
Nice idea conceptually, but I just looked at it and thought it would be a bugger to use. Everyone would get hit more often and everyone would have to track their DR and make sure they were paying attention and got the math right etc...
Now what I am gleaming is that that Respect for Shields, [Think Tank] Fighter and [Think Tank] Two Weapon Fighting should merge together.
Personally, I like all of these going under [Think Tank] FIghter and using the Fighter Talents as the mechanic to accomplish our goals. Then, have Respect for Shields go under [Think Tank] Two Weapon Fighting, in that the shield is essentially the off-hand weapon.
By using FIghter Talents in Two Weapon FIghting, and Feats like Shield Bash, and a Shield Parry Talent , a fighter gains the ability use the shield both offensively and defensively; keeping the AC bonus, using it to attack with, and by using an AoO make parries.
I know it was mentioned that parrying unbalanced 2nd Ed, but I think that by limiting it to AoO it reduces the opportunities to use it, and it gives Combat Reflexes a real purpose. However, Combat Reflexes still doesn't allow more than one AoO per opponent, as far as I can tell, so a frontline fighter could on parry-block one attack per opponent. He would still be subject to multiple hits at higher levels.
The way I see this scenario playing out, the FIghter needs Two Weapon Fighting, Shield Bash, Shield Parry, and Combat Reflexes, to stand his ground against three adjacent opponents. The fighter has a choice to make though. Use his AoOs to parry three of the plethora of incoming attacks (up to 12- or if 2-weapon fighters maxed out as in some discussions above as many as 24!) or save the AoOs to prevent his opponents from moving through his threatened spaces. The decision would depend upon the situation.
But in that scenario the fighter could block 1 out of 4 attacks at best or 1 out of 8 attacks at worst. Assuming the more common 1 out of 4, that hardly seems excessive.
And how many clerics out there will object to their fighters avoiding some damage? :)
Nick Logue is a brilliant game designer, but I feel obligated to mention that it was me who designed that puppy! Which just means that I get to be the one to say Thank you for your kind words.
Oops! My apologies Craig and damn fine work! :)
EDIT: Personally, I'd love to write a sword and shield article like 'Art of the Duel.' My earliest experience with historical combat involved sword and shield, and it is still dear to my heart. I've been doing a lot of research and interpretation of a manual from ~1300 AD (RA manuscript I:33) that deals exclusively with sword and shield (technically buckler, but more like a D&D light shield).
I say go for it!
Jason, James: Any chance of incorporating some of these great ideas into PFRPG? Unless I mis-read, aside from anything constituting product identity (i.e. art, proper names, etc.) it is Open Game Content under the OGL... correct?
However, Combat Reflexes still doesn't allow more than one AoO per opponent, as far as I can tell, so a frontline fighter could on parry-block one attack per opponent. He would still be subject to multiple hits at higher levels.
Krome, not sure if that's a difference between 3.0 or 3.5 but here's the current rules in 3.5 anyway (has it changed in PFRPG?)...
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.
|
|
I have to wrack my brain awfully hard to think how I am going to provoke two AoOs. I suppose standing from prone gets you one, then moving through a threatened space gets another. So it could happen, not often though.
The way I can see this as being unbalancing is at lower levels. Opponents get one attack, you have Combat Reflexes. So you get to block each of their attacks. The frustrating part is when the GM uses it against the PCs. But the tide turns later and it becomes less a factor.
I will have to try it out in play to see what I think.
Moving and then casting a spell, or drawing an item would provoke an AoO, but that would be an unlikley circumstance.
|
|
One thing that I think is really lacking from 3.5e is respect for shields. I would propose a few things to change this.
1. Shield bonus applies to touch AC. A shield is not a static item and as long as the user is not flat-footed (surprised) it should be considered a viable defense against touch attacks. It is not "part of the body" but rather an item that is wielded. I would also NOT apply shield bonuses to flat-footed AC.
2. A series of shield mastery feats that increase the bonus to AC that shields provide.
3. A general increase in the viability of shields (this is stolen from someone else's thread, if I could find it I would credit them with this idea). Light shield +2, Heavy shield +3, Tower Shield (which requires everyone but fighters to take a feat to use) +5.
Thelesuit - check out the Defender Talents I just added. Does this sound like something that fits your idea?
Robert
No, I would keep it for both Flat Footed and Touch AC, otherwise it does not really improve the usefulness of shields, just makes them "different".
How about a feat like deflect arrows, but you know, for shields.
One thing that I think is really lacking from 3.5e is respect for shields. I would propose a few things to change this.
1. Shield bonus applies to touch AC. A shield is not a static item and as long as the user is not flat-footed (surprised) it should be considered a viable defense against touch attacks. It is not "part of the body" but rather an item that is wielded. I would also NOT apply shield bonuses to flat-footed AC.
2. A series of shield mastery feats that increase the bonus to AC that shields provide.
3. A general increase in the viability of shields (this is stolen from someone else's thread, if I could find it I would credit them with this idea). Light shield +2, Heavy shield +3, Tower Shield (which requires everyone but fighters to take a feat to use) +5.
Historically the shield was a warrior's best friend. It enabled him to survive combat and provided a safe refuge. I am really tired of seeing the grid dominated by two-handed weapon fighters when it should rightfully belong to those with "sword and board".
CJ
You know, this is a great idea, you have the captain's support on this one.
Here is a thought, make two weapon defense stack with shield use. I would also say that two weapon defence should be a progressive 1 feat, not 3 separate.
Here is a thought, make two weapon defense stack with shield use. I would also say that two weapon defence should be a progressive 1 feat, not 3 separate.
I actually made that change to TWD in my campaign some time ago. I figured that it helped to balance out having to spend feats on extra off-hand attacks that are at progressively worse modifiers.
I like the idea of using sometime similar for shields.