Respect for Shields

[The Real Orion]

Lots of good thoughts, here. My responses:

The simplest thing is to just double the shield bonuses. Hands down.

I'm leery of making "defence rolls" because they really slow down game play, but one of my players, years ago, suggested a parry system in which, instead of either blocking or not blocking the attack, your parry attempt simply lowered the amount of damage of the incoming attack. This was mocked up for 2nd Ed, so alter it to taste, but basically when someone attacked you, you could use your own attacks against his/her weapon and reduce their damage by your damage roll. Doing so ate up attacks from your next turn.

Shield bonuses should, absolutely, apply to Touch AC. I'm sort of mystified that they don't already.

What's the point of allowing Two-Weapon Defence and Shield bonuses to stack? The only time that could come up is if you have a buckler (it's the only shield you can use and attack with the same arm), so it seems like a minor thing.

[Plognark]

The Real Orion wrote:

Lots of good thoughts, here. My responses:

The simplest thing is to just double the shield bonuses. Hands down.

I'm leery of making "defence rolls" because they really slow down game play, but one of my players, years ago, suggested a parry system in which, instead of either blocking or not blocking the attack, your parry attempt simply lowered the amount of damage of the incoming attack. This was mocked up for 2nd Ed, so alter it to taste, but basically when someone attacked you, you could use your own attacks against his/her weapon and reduce their damage by your damage roll. Doing so ate up attacks from your next turn.

Shield bonuses should, absolutely, apply to Touch AC. I'm sort of mystified that they don't already.

What's the point of allowing Two-Weapon Defence and Shield bonuses to stack? The only time that could come up is if you have a buckler (it's the only shield you can use and attack with the same arm), so it seems like a minor thing.

Shield Bash. Turns a shield into a weapon.

[The Real Orion]

Okay... so now you're attacking with one weapon and also attacking with one shield. At best, you might now get a TWD bonus from the shield, but I still don't see where you're going to get a shield bonus and a TWD bonus at the same time. The TWD bonus implicitly comes from your off-hand. You could, I suppose, switch your shield to your dominant hand and use a weapon in your off-hand (for 1/2 Str bonus to damage), but that's stretching reality a lot. At that point, I'd just tell a PC to bugger off and stop being a dingus.

[Twowlves]

We already have a two-weapon fighting chain of feats. Turning the sword'n'board style into a wannabe two-weapon style (as it stands now) kinda defeats the purpose of having a unique style for shield bearers.

[Shisumo]

I think the biggest issue I have with shields in D&D as it stands is that I can't actually achieve the iconic fighter-vs-dragon image where the fighter blocks the dragon's blast of flame by barely getting his shield in the way in time. I know tower shields can, under very specific circumstances, give a small Reflex save boost, but it's hardly the same.

What if light shields gave a +2 bonus to Reflex saves against area effects when you're not flat-footed, and heavy shields did the same but also grant evasion?

[The Real Orion]

Well, now you're talking about the difference between Armour Class and Saving Throws. Presently, armour just has no affect on saves, so unless you want to houserule that, I don't see how you can achieve the situation you're referring to (which is a shame, really).

[Steven Purcell]

thelesuit wrote:

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

One complication on the Touch AC issue is that for a touch attack you just have to make contact with the person not even needing to breach the armour and that would apply to shields as well - the spell (it's usually magical abilities of some description that use touch attacks) would pass right through shield and armour to get to the person inside.

I don't disagree that shields were quite useful in history but one other factor would be thrown into consideration: facing. If you have two blows coming at you from different directions which one do you block?

[thelesuit]

Steven Purcell wrote:

One complication on the Touch AC issue is that for a touch attack you just have to make contact with the person not even needing to breach the armour and that would apply to shields as well - the spell (it's usually magical abilities of some description that use touch attacks) would pass right through shield and armour to get to the person inside.

Is this the effect? I thought that the effect was more like striking the body of the person -- the armour is in effect an extension of the body. Do touch attacks actually pass through armour? I'm not clear on this. If they do, you certainly have a point.

Steven Purcell wrote:

I don't disagree that shields were quite useful in history but one other factor would be thrown into consideration: facing. If you have two blows coming at you from different directions which one do you block?

Well this is true. If we go back to facing rules -- which we could certainly do (aren't there options for this in Unearthed Arcana?) -- shields would not protect your hindmost. I want to split the difference. I want shields to be a bit more effective, but I don't want to have to deal with facing (or convert all the rules that don't account for facing into Yes-Facing rules).

I am testing out these rules in my own campaign. We'll see how they work. So far the additional +1 AC provided hasn't made the much of a difference. So few characters use shields. I don't think having Shield Focus and Shield Specialization feats (or some-such) is going to make a big difference either. Most fighters want the "I do more damage" feats rather than the "I don't get hurt" feats.

The changes to Touch AC might be a bit more telling. As an option I might add a magical shield that allows its shield bonus to apply to Touch AC.

CJ

[The Real Orion]

Well, what happens if you do all of these things?

Shield bonuses double, so carrying a Light shield is now +4 AC. Shield proficiencies allow for a +2 to that shield bonus, so now you've got +6 coming from just your shield, but you're down two feats. Is +6 AC worth two feats and having one hand occupied?

For the equivalent bonus, you'd need splint mail or banded mail, which is 200+ gp, but doesn't require an extra feat (if you're wearing that kind of armour, it probably came with your class features). So now the question becomes, is 2 feats and 9gp (for a shield) the equivalent of no feats and 200+ gp?

The question isn't just "will people take the option?" because there's just no accounting for every person. The question is also, "is this radically more powerful than other, existing options in the game?"

[Robert Brambley]

The Real Orion wrote:

Well, what happens if you do all of these things?

Shield bonuses double, so carrying a Light shield is now +4 AC. Shield proficiencies allow for a +2 to that shield bonus, so now you've got +6 coming from just your shield, but you're down two feats. Is +6 AC worth two feats and having one hand occupied?

For the equivalent bonus, you'd need splint mail or banded mail, which is 200+ gp, but doesn't require an extra feat (if you're wearing that kind of armour, it probably came with your class features). So now the question becomes, is 2 feats and 9gp (for a shield) the equivalent of no feats and 200+ gp?

The question isn't just "will people take the option?" because there's just no accounting for every person. The question is also, "is this radically more powerful than other, existing options in the game?"

Yup! (I'll take that option! Any day!)

I have played one two-hander style character and loved it.

BUT I typically prefer better AC - and I enjoy even more being the "that guy" that the party can rely on still standing at the end of the fight - which is why I love playing the armored and shielded decked out paladin.

Maybe I wont do 50 points of damage per strike like the barbarian; but I'd rather stay conscious for the whole fight - being out of intitiative because I'm bleeding to death is even less fun than only doing 12 points of damage per hit.

Robert