I agree here. I would prefer shields adding to touch AC and armor granting DR, but that is just me.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I agree here. I would prefer shields adding to touch AC and armor granting DR, but that is just me.
Count me in this camp as well.
I would like to see armor give DR.
I would like to see shields give a cover/dodge/deflection bonus to AC (as in, one that works vs. touch attacks, and for that matter to Reflex saves).
I mean, I wouldn't mind if shields gave DR in addition to armor giving DR, but it wouldn't be #1 on my list of must-haves.
I agree here. I would prefer shields adding to touch AC and armor granting DR, but that is just me.
Seconded. I'm against armor making the target difficult to hit as is but, I'm aware that, as it currently exists, adding complication to the system is probably a bad thing. No matter how fitting said complication may be. As for shields as touch AC, I'd like to see a reason for people to use them again.
Currently this DR is proposed as a fighter feat, and they do have armour mastery at lvl 19 which grants DR. When the fighter playtest was being done, people requested that the DR be doubled if the fighter was also using a shield in addition to armour. These feats are a way of granting it without making it free.
While I understand that, I feel that giving shield users a feat that adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, would be more useful.
I think the love for sword and board is far more important to the game than any quibling about realism. Leave it be and see how it plays in game, and if there are complaints base them on its effect on game play. A gripe about realism in a game where people toss fire balls is secondary to the possiblity of having a new fun, yet ballanced build for a character.
@ Jason Nelson: Didn't you have a pretty in-depth thread about different effect that armor and shields should have? I don't remember the full scope, but I remember it being awesome.
A far more realistic system would be to have all armors ONLY provide a certain amount of DR. Armor really doesn't prevent you from being hit -- it just sucks up the impact or prevents weapon penetration. Shields sort of do both. Shields deflect blows (increase AC) and suck up impacts (provide DR).
Of course, this isn't exactly backward compatible.
I'm not sure why DR should be a magical effect or reserved for uber-level barbarians who can shrug off damage.
CJ
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, Kevin. I think you're referring to this rant by Sean Reynolds.
The way I read the essay, Mr. Reynolds offers that a system where armor grants damage bonuses is a design change that would require a fair amount of work, not that it's a very bad idea prima facie.
--+--+--
In my own (sorta quirky) campaign, mundane armor commonly offers both defensive modifications to an opponent's attack roll and also some amount of damage reduction, to a maximum of 1d4 DR/adamantine per weight category (light / medium / heavy).
And shields don't offer DR at all. But we liked the idea of a shield-fighting feat which allow characters to spend an AoA to parry a blow with a successful Dexterity-based attack against an AC equal to the attacker's attack roll.
--+--+--
But I'm not king of the world. I'm not recommending that for Pathfinder, because it changes the whole feel of shields. they become an active thing, rather than a passive penalty to your opponent's attack roll.
|
Hey, Kevin. I think you're referring to this rant by Sean Reynolds.
The way I read the essay, Mr. Reynolds offers that a system where armor grants damage bonuses is a design change that would require a fair amount of work, not that it's a very bad idea prima facie.
In my own (sorta quirky) campaign, mundane armor commonly offers both defensive modifications to an opponent's attack roll and also some amount of damage reduction, to a maximum of 1d4 DR/adamantine per weight category (light / medium / heavy).
And shields don't offer DR at all.
Yeah that's the one. I actually do agree with a lot of the points he makes I honestly feel having none magical armours give DR is a bad idea.
There is also the backward compatibility aspect as well and isn't one of the complaints about 3.5 the golf bag syndrome? How is adding even more things that give DR solving that?
Armor really doesn't prevent you from being hit
True and not true !???
If you wear armor and be hit by a very weak blow you dont't miss....
But as the hit is so weak you don't feel it/doesn't hurt.
Alas no damage roll.
P.S. just to give an example as I'am not with one or the other.
Two Hand weapon warriors sacrifice defense for offense, gaining bonuses towards damage.
Sword and board warriors sacrifice offense for Defense, and should gain bonuses towards defense.
The only problem is you can only give so many bonuses to AC, before things fall apart. Make the bonus too high and combat breaks down, dont make AC bonuses high enough... and shields get ignored again.
Giving bonus DR to shields through feats rewords warriors that invest in skilled shield training. And it fits the idea of the sword and board warrior having better defense... as in taking longer to loss the same amount of HPs a two hand weapon warrior would.
Giving DR to Armors just benefits two hand weapon warriors, and reinforces the fact that sword and board sucks.
|
|
Currently this DR is proposed as a fighter feat, and they do have armour mastery at lvl 19 which grants DR. When the fighter playtest was being done, people requested that the DR be doubled if the fighter was also using a shield in addition to armour. These feats are a way of granting it without making it free.While I understand that, I feel that giving shield users a feat that adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, would be more useful.
Count me also in as one of the proponents for "Armor = DR". As others have already suggested, I'd like to see Shield Feats that grant:
1) Shield bonus to touch AC ('Shield Ward')
2) Shield bonus to REF saves ('Reflective Shield', or something like that)
|
Hey, Kevin. I think you're referring to this rant by Sean Reynolds.
The way I read the essay, Mr. Reynolds offers that a system where armor grants damage bonuses is a design change that would require a fair amount of work, not that it's a very bad idea prima facie.
In my own (sorta quirky) campaign, mundane armor commonly offers both defensive modifications to an opponent's attack roll and also some amount of damage reduction, to a maximum of 1d4 DR/adamantine per weight category (light / medium / heavy).
And shields don't offer DR at all.
Yeah that's the one. I actually do agree with a lot of the points he makes I honestly feel having none magical armours give DR is a bad idea.
There is also the backward compatibility aspect as well and isn't one of the complaints about 3.5 the golf bag syndrome? How is adding even more things that give DR solving that?
Because the things added that give dr are for the most part adding dr/- which no amount of golf bagging will fix because there is no way to bypass it, unless the creature is a demon/undead
|
To be honest, I am still mulling over whether or not some armor forms will grant DR in a limited scope. Mind you, they will still provide AC, but some of the higher armor types should grant some form of DR.
More to come...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
yes please! this sounds good! heavier armor should be able to absorb some damage!
|
|
1) Shield bonus to touch AC ('Shield Ward')
2) Shield bonus to REF saves ('Reflective Shield', or something like that)I think that would be good.
Something else to consider is the wording of Deflect Arrows: "...Once per round, when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged weapon doesn't count as an action..."
Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like something a shield feat should be able to do against melee attacks? (Also, why doesn't Deflect Arrows work when you're wearing a shield?)
Heh, I've said this time and again, especially when I wanted to create my captain america like fighter.
|
|
I thought Damage Reduction was supposed to simulate the mystical vulnerabilities of otherwise 'indestructible' creatures. Werewolves, vampires, ghosts, etc. It's the kryptonite mechanic.
Adding DR as a means to patch the hit/miss armor class mechanic really shouldn't be done, imho. It muddies the system. The interplay between armor class and hit points is conceptually silly, but at least it's streamlined. Adding DR to the equation doesn't make it any less silly, but it does suggest a lack of design focus.
There’s a discomfort with the binary nature of armor that’s creeping over PFBeta. I say either bite the bullet and introduce a comprehensive change to armor, or look for new ways to make Armor Class matter. The bit-by-bit DR approach just seems like a PrC bloat mechanic on the horizon.
*makes his bitter weevil face*
|
|
Jason why not keep normal armour as is but add an optional rule to have some of the heavier armours give DR for those that want to use it, that would keep both camps happy, but really the armours need to be fixed, there are only 3 kinds of armour that is worth taking, if going to look at armour please look at fixing all them so the light med and heavy ones are valid choices, am tired of seeing chain shirts and platemails on all my fighters!
We're not interested in armor and shields granting DR (or touch AC bonuses) - for our group it just doesn't fit. We wanted some more love for shields also, so for our playtests, I cooked up (and then revised) THESE feats.
They've been quite popular with all classes and have proven to be balanced from 1st through 17th level.
Peace,
tfad
Feats reposted under the spoiler for those too lazy to use the link:
Shield Block
Prereq: Shield Prof.
When using a shield, your shield bonus to AC is raised by 1 point.
Shield Guard
Prereq: Shield Block feat, BAB 4+
When using a shield you gain a protective percentage miss
chance against all melee and ranged attacks (but not touch
attacks). This percentage chance is equal to 9%. It
increases to 12% when fighting defensively or using the
Expertise feat. It increases to 15% when using the total
defense action.
Improved Shield Guard
Prereq: Shield Guard feat, BAB 8+
Your protective percentage miss chance provided by the
Shield Guard feat increases to 15%. It increases to 20%
when fighting defensively or using the Expertise feat.
It increases to 25% when using the total defense action.
Greater Shield Guard
Prereq: Improved Shield Guard feat, BAB 12+
Your protective percentage miss chance provided by the
Improved Shield Guard feat increases to 21%. It
increases to 28% when fighting defensively or using
the Expertise feat. It increases to 35% when using the
total defense action.
Master's Shield Guard
Prereq: Greater Shield Guard feat, BAB 16+
Your protective percentage miss chance provided by the
Greater Shield Guard feat increases to 27%. It
increases to 36% when fighting defensively or using
the Expertise feat. It increases to 45% when using the
total defense action.
Shield Cover
Prereq: Shield Prof.
When using a shield, you add your shield AC bonus to your reflex save.
This effect stacks with cover bonuses.
Improved Shield Cover
Prereq: Shield Cover feat
When using a shield, allies treat any space you occupy and any
adjacent space you threaten as one quarter cover. The maximum
number of allies that can benefit from this feat is equal to
1/2 your BAB. This feat cannot be used with a reach weapon.
Nb. These feats all say "when using a shield", a buckler does not count!
In addition, you can't make use of these feats while flat footed.
Currently this DR is proposed as a fighter feat, and they do have armour mastery at lvl 19 which grants DR. When the fighter playtest was being done, people requested that the DR be doubled if the fighter was also using a shield in addition to armour. These feats are a way of granting it without making it free.While I understand that, I feel that giving shield users a feat that adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, would be more useful.
I don't think that a shield works correctly in this regard. How would a shield prevent an incorporeal touch attack? Are you going to put rules in place specifically for this exception? That would result in needless complication.
-Steve
Currently this DR is proposed as a fighter feat, and they do have armour mastery at lvl 19 which grants DR. When the fighter playtest was being done, people requested that the DR be doubled if the fighter was also using a shield in addition to armour. These feats are a way of granting it without making it free.While I understand that, I feel that giving shield users a feat that adds their shield bonus to their touch AC, would be more useful.I don't think that a shield works correctly in this regard. How would a shield prevent an incorporeal touch attack? Are you going to put rules in place specifically for this exception? That would result in needless complication.
-Steve
An incorporeal touch attack is basically a slam attack that can bypass most armour because it is incorporeal; whereas a touch attack must simply make contact with a creature to deliver its effect not needing to go through the armour at all. I believe the Sage gave this answer in Sage Advice in Dragon 317 (might have been 311, not sure). If a creature has armour effective against incorporeal attacks (say, ghost touch armour) incorporeal touch attacks would not ignore the AC bonus, but a touch attack still would.
An incorporeal touch attack is basically a slam attack that can bypass most armour because it is incorporeal; whereas a touch attack must simply make contact with a creature to deliver its effect not needing to go through the armour at all. I believe the Sage gave this answer in Sage Advice in Dragon 317 (might have been 311, not sure). If a creature has armour effective against incorporeal attacks (say, ghost touch armour) incorporeal touch attacks would not ignore the AC bonus, but a touch attack still would.
Correct. A feat that allows you to add your shield bonus to touch AC would not help against an incorporeal touch. I see such a feat as allowing the character to intercept a ray or touch attack with the shield in such a way that it does not make "direct" contact. Just as a missed attack roll can reflect a blow that glanced off of armor, a feat that adds the shield bonus to touch AC can reflect actively trying to deflecti an attack enough to make it useless.
|
|
An incorporeal touch attack is basically a slam attack that can bypass most armour because it is incorporeal; whereas a touch attack must simply make contact with a creature to deliver its effect not needing to go through the armour at all. I believe the Sage gave this answer in Sage Advice in Dragon 317 (might have been 311, not sure). If a creature has armour effective against incorporeal attacks (say, ghost touch armour) incorporeal touch attacks would not ignore the AC bonus, but a touch attack still would.Correct. A feat that allows you to add your shield bonus to touch AC would not help against an incorporeal touch. I see such a feat as allowing the character to intercept a ray or touch attack with the shield in such a way that it does not make "direct" contact. Just as a missed attack roll can reflect a blow that glanced off of armor, a feat that adds the shield bonus to touch AC can reflect actively trying to deflecti an attack enough to make it useless.
I agree. The benefit from feats to add your shield bonus to REF saves and/or touch AC should not be "automatic" -- for example, if you're flat-footed your shield bonus should not apply. And definitely not against attacks from incorporeal creatures, but effects such as Ray spells should still be considered "corporeal" attacks.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A touch AC for something like Ray of Frost means that the spell works even if it "hits them in the armor."
The question is, do you think that a fighter interposing her shield is missed (that is, the ray hit her shield instead of her) or hit (hit in the shield)?
As someone who's fought --years ago-- in the SCA, interposing a shield certainly feels like a miss to me.