Director of Games
|
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Here is the issue, a touch attack is meant to connect with your or your gear. Since it is primarily used with magic attacks, this makes sense, otherwise platemail armor would basically make you invincible, since none of your skin can be touched. Removing shield from this list, and allowing it to protect you versus touch seems odd. I can see the value of doing so, from a mechanical sense, but I think there are better ways to make a shield worthwhile than this.
The feats presented earlier are a good start.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Here is the issue, a touch attack is meant to connect with your or your gear. Since it is primarily used with magic attacks, this makes sense, otherwise platemail armor would basically make you invincible, since none of your skin can be touched. Removing shield from this list, and allowing it to protect you versus touch seems odd. I can see the value of doing so, from a mechanical sense, but I think there are better ways to make a shield worthwhile than this.
The feats presented earlier are a good start.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I understand that argument, but I don't agree on the entirety of it. Here is my point. Touch AC's are to low, so I increase the touch AC's of my monster. Now, however, to do that I have to increase its Dex, its Deflection bonus, and/or its dodge bonus. With the possible exception of Dexterity depending on the armor, all of these effects conspire to increase the Overall AC of the critter. The Shield AC applying to touch will almost never increase the overall AC, but the touch AC will increase thus solving a lot of problems.
As for the Thematic problem of the Shield, it is an object you hold or strap on top of armor or clothes you are already wearing. Thus it is now 2 layers away from you. Besides it really invokes the imagery of the Shield being raised to block the Wizards Ray of Black Death (Copyrighted spell ;)
|
Director of Games
|
I know that touch AC's are low, but they are supposed to be. Many spells require a touch attack and if that value goes up to high, those spells become worthless. I am also worried about this making enhancement bonuses on a shield far more valuable than that placed on armor, which would need to be accounted for in the pricing scheme.
Like I said, this is an interesting thought, but I think its ramifications are a bit wider and more challenging that it first appears.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
I also quite like the idea of shield bonuses applying to touch armour. As it stands most creatures have very very poor touch armour this would help beef up touch armour without making it to good or affecting a creatures normal Ac.
I have had much better results applying 1/2 the shield bonus to Reflex saves. It allows for much more dramatic Reflex save descriptions and a more accurate depiction of how the fighter somehow reduces the damage he takes from the fire dragon's cone of destructive fiery breath.
|
I know that touch AC's are low, but they are supposed to be. Many spells require a touch attack and if that value goes up to high, those spells become worthless. I am also worried about this making enhancement bonuses on a shield far more valuable than that placed on armor, which would need to be accounted for in the pricing scheme.
Like I said, this is an interesting thought, but I think its ramifications are a bit wider and more challenging that it first appears.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Again true however I feel that touch armour classes are often to low (especially when you have someone who isn't just a wizard making a touch attack) and shields are a simple way of bringing them up slightly.
|
|
As I also disagree with Shields adding to touch AC...especially with shocking grasp...
How about Touch AC being based on Reflex save instead of dex and size alone?
What method did you arbitrarily use to increase the touch AC of monsters? That's just wrong IMHO...
I didn't and that's the problem watching a psionic fighter hitting on touch armour with high critical two handed weapon while power attacking (Yeah it was a one trick pony but it only needed to work once) kind of convinced me that touch armour needs work.
|
Director of Games
|
I didn't and that's the problem watching a psionic fighter hitting on touch armour with high critical two handed weapon while power attacking (Yeah it was a one trick pony but it only needed to work once) kind of convinced me that touch armour needs work.
I think the problem might be the psionic fighter, and not the touch AC mechanic... but I could be wrong.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
Actually I think changing it to Reflex might give it just the boost it needs...rogues and monks should be nearly impossible to hit with a touch attack.
I would save one other mod from reflex would be reduce it by the AC penalty...a heavily armored fighter would be easier to hit even if he did have a decent relfex, that would bring it back down...size and dodge of course would still add to touch AC. (it would also make magic missiles more useful again...for those pesky rogues)
This change would allow for slightly increasing Touch ACs as the characters level.
Edit: It could be based on BASE reflex+dex rather than modified Reflex, as a +5 cloak of resistance would be much more valuable...however...that would be a play test idea. I might change this in my game regardless.
I didn't and that's the problem watching a psionic fighter hitting on touch armour with high critical two handed weapon while power attacking (Yeah it was a one trick pony but it only needed to work once) kind of convinced me that touch armour needs work.I think the problem might be the psionic fighter, and not the touch AC mechanic... but I could be wrong.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm sorry but giving shield bonus to touch is also an issue with touch spells. A lot of people want to use weapons and two weapons, not shields. They don't give enough of a bonus. Adding Shield AC to touch, even if you made combat expertise grant double bonus to AC for those wielding shields would do anything game breaking. You give up so much using a shield as it is now.
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Here is the issue, a touch attack is meant to connect with your or your gear. Since it is primarily used with magic attacks, this makes sense, otherwise platemail armor would basically make you invincible, since none of your skin can be touched. Removing shield from this list, and allowing it to protect you versus touch seems odd. I can see the value of doing so, from a mechanical sense, but I think there are better ways to make a shield worthwhile than this.
The feats presented earlier are a good start.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This position is a "double-edged sword". A shield is a mobile wall that you carry. Armor is worn and not carried. The argument of weather or not a shield should grant it's bonus to touch AC with regard to magical attacks can seem odd on both sides of the argument, depending on the spell in question:
Can a shield protect you from the following spells all with touch attacks:
Disintegrate
Scorching Ray
Meteor Swarm
Melf's Acid Arrow
I'm confident that depending on who you ask, you will get well thought out answers that support both sides.
I think this is one of the better ways of making a shield more attractive and on par with the other styles of fighting. It certainly fits the defensive tendencies of a shield user.
As far as ramifications are concerned, is it really that bad if a spell caster has a more difficult time using his touch spells against foes who carry shields? I suppose if every opponent they come across is carrying one it might. And when you consider the plethora of options spell casters have besides touch spells, the position of not allowing shields grant touch AC seems quite unfair to non-spell casters.
Adding a shield's +1 or +2 to touch AC isn't too much. Touch AC's should be low, but could use a bit more. But as Jason said, letting Shield Enhancement bonuses stack onto that would make them extremely better than armor enhancement bonuses, and +6 or +7 to touch AC would be just too much.
|
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Players Handbook II
Shield Ward
Prerequisites Shield Focus(Shield Spelization)Shield Proficiency
Benefit : You can apply your shield bouns to your touch AC, and on your CMB ( checks or rolls to resist bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, or trip attempts against you.)
Special: a fighter can select shield ward as a bouns feat.
|
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Players Handbook II
Shield Ward
Prerequisites Shield Focus(Shield Spelization)Shield ProficiencyBenefit : You can apply your shield bouns to your touch AC, and on your CMB ( checks or rolls to resist bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, or trip attempts against you.)
Special: a fighter can select shield ward as a bouns feat.
There ya go! one more case solved by actually opening those books located far, far away (i.e. 3 feet) from one's damn keyboard! sigh...
Here are some examples from my recent play experience.
I'm GMing a group in the Age of Worms campaign with 17th & 18th level PCs. So lets see...
There's a fighter in the group with the following:
* +3 Dex bonus
* Ring of Protection +4
* Heavy Steel Shield of Acid Resistance +4
* Shield Ward feat from PHB II
* Shield Specialization Feat (granting +1 to shield bonus of carried shield)
So, he gets a full +7 bonus to touch AC from his shield.
This gives him a touch AC of 24 at 18th level.
An 18th level wizard has a BAB of +9. He needs a 15+ to hit before modifiers.
And here are some examples from the Age of Worms...
Kings of the Rift: (note: this was several sessions ago)
* Grazzilfek, The Ominous Fabler has a worm attack that is a +18 touch attack
* The Motherworm can shoot an acid ray with a +25 touch attack
* Vercinabex Tor has +18 ranged touch attacks
Into the Worm Crawl Fissure: (we recently finished this chapter. I haven't given XP yet, but all have likely gained a level)
* The Kyuss Chimeras have a +27 worm touch attack
* The Ulgurstasta N'vesh-n'kar has a +15 ranged touch for his spell attacks
* Thessalar the Lich has a +10 melee touch and a +14 ranged touch for his spells (also this is an example of a true spell caster only)
* Venk, the Derro Fighter 8/Warlock 9, has a +24 touch Eldritch Blast
I could go on and on...
From my experience, this is not a broken idea. In fact, in may cases it barely even helps. In the context of PC party, I anticipate that this change would slightly de-power spell casters in regards to combating a shield user (encouraging them to consider other spell options when facing them), and slightly increase the usefulness of a good BAB character, because he can hit better.
EDIT: and wouldn't have to waste a feat on the ability.
EDIT: In the end, giving this as a feat option rather than just making it standard, isn't a bad alternative, but then if the argument stands that it's strange that a shield should grant it's bonus to touch AC vs. spells, how do you justify that now it seems OK that you can with a feat? Can a lowly fighter train to deflect spells with his shield all of a sudden? That seems just as strange if you want to take that train of thought.
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
In my games, shield provide a bonus to touch attacks, but don't provide a bonus to AC when flat footed.
When the shild bonus makes the difference between hit and miss of touch attacks, the shield is hit. The player has to make a DC 15 Reflex save, and when unsuccesfull, the shield is affected by the spell or whatever else was blocked.Despite the slight increase of usefullness, it also has a psychological effect on the use of shields. When you can see what almost would have hit you in the face without the shield, you probably much more appreachiate it. ^^
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Perhaps the simple solution for shields is to do this: Shields essentially provide portable partial cover. Thus, they provide a cover bonus to AC, not a shield bonus or armor bonus.
Buckler = +1 cover bonus to AC
Light shield = +2 cover bonus to AC, +1 cover bonus to Reflex saves.
Heavy shield = +3 cover bonus to AC, +1 cover bonus to Reflex saves
Tower shield = +4 cover bonus to AC, +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves.
A shield does not provide sufficient cover to hide or prevent AoOs, except in the case of a tower shield when using the total defense action.
A shield's cover bonus does not apply when you are flat-footed or denied your Dexterity bonus.
A shield's enhancement bonus applies to its cover bonus to AC but not to Reflex saves.
Simple, to the point.
A lot about touch AC.
I have noticed the same thing in AoW game. The casters in my game aslo quickly got dex items for AC and to improve their touch attacks. They have taken down a couple of opponents the the melee types have had trouble hitting, but have next to no touch AC.
Buckler = +1 cover bonus to AC
Light shield = +2 cover bonus to AC, +1 cover bonus to Reflex saves.
Heavy shield = +3 cover bonus to AC, +1 cover bonus to Reflex saves
Tower shield = +4 cover bonus to AC, +2 cover bonus to Reflex saves.
I noticed that you bumped the bonus for light and heavy shields. Don't know if changing the bonus from shield to cover is best, but it's interesting.
However, the slight bump to light & heavy shields is IMO the simplest change to shields to increase their benefit. Would that change attract more interest for shields? Light Shields in particular tend to get forgotten in my campaign, with bucklers deemed to be more beneficial overall by my players.
Buckler = +1 shield bonus to AC
Light Shield = +2 shield bonus to AC
Heavy Shield = +3 shield bonus to AC
Tower Shield = +4 shield bonus to AC
Edited
Adding a shield's +1 or +2 to touch AC isn't too much. Touch AC's should be low, but could use a bit more. But as Jason said, letting Shield Enhancement bonuses stack onto that would make them extremely better than armor enhancement bonuses, and +6 or +7 to touch AC would be just too much.
Would it?
Touch AC is currently just about every high-level PC and monster's weakness. Why? Because the gap between AC and touch AC is so high that anything with a reasonable chance of hitting a high-level AC is probably looking for 2s when up against touch AC.
For example, I'm currently running an AC-focused Bard at 17th level.
His AC is:
10 base
+9 armor - +5 mithral chain shirt
+7 shield - +5 animated mithral heavy shield
+6 Dex - includes Gloves of Dex +6
+5 natural enhancement - Amulet of Natural Armor
+4 Deflection - Shield of Faith
+1 Insight - Dusty Rose Prism
+5 Defending spiked Gauntlet
+1 Haste - Boots of Speed
=AC 48, touch 27, a difference of 21 points. That's a LOT. So much that everything that can possibly hit AC 48 (+29 or greater) is looking for 2s on touch attacks.
And that's for an AC-focused character. Using core options.
The gap is just so large. Adding Shield bonus to Touch AC makes perfect sense; you use it to deflect touch attacks. A Divine Shield+Shield Ward buddy of mine deflected rays all the time.
Barring Shield Ward from PHB2 or Parrying Shield from Lords of Madness, keep in mind that currently, a shield cannot deflect rays, but a Defending gauntlet can.
Combat Expertise also adds to touch AC, and that requires attacking with a weapon. So currently, a weapon can deflect rays, but a shield can't.
Such a change would also throw a bone to non-Animated shield users. They have it rough enough; they're quite literally sacrificing melee damage for extra AC; why not close the gap between AC and touch AC as well?
-Matt
Thematically adding Shield AC to your Touch AC works as well. In my old Complete Warrior p.107 there's a picture of a Paladin deflecting a dragon's blast with her shield. In the old Conan the Adventurer cartoon the hero regularly deflected magic blasts with his shield. I really wish I could get a more literary sorce than an old cartoon but I don't remember any shields in LoTR.
Historically most soldiers used a weapon and a shield, our ancestors weren't fools, shields must have provided some significant advantage. For backwards compatability give shield users a new feat that lets them add shield AC to touch AC, and give them an additional bonus based on their BAB. I know that's strong for a feat but it would bring shields in line with fighting two-handed.
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Would like.
[snip
Buckler = +1 shield bonus to AC
Light Shield = +2 shield bonus to AC
Heavy Shield = +3 shield bonus to AC
Tower Shield = +4 shield bonus to AC
Edited
Would also like.But I would suggest a flat +2 increase to all shields. In historical combat the Warrior with an advantage was the winner, a well constructed shield was often that advantage. The shield must become more relevant. A puny +2 for a piece of wood n' metal that covers half your body? Only a +4 for a tower sheild? The thing is a mobil wall!
|
|
I also quite like the idea of shield bonuses applying to touch armour. As it stands most creatures have very very poor touch armour this would help beef up touch armour without making it to good or affecting a creatures normal Ac.I have had much better results applying 1/2 the shield bonus to Reflex saves. It allows for much more dramatic Reflex save descriptions and a more accurate depiction of how the fighter somehow reduces the damage he takes from the fire dragon's cone of destructive fiery breath.
Several posters have suggested a feat similar to 'Shield Ward' (from PHB 2, I think?), which would let you apply your shield bonus to REF saves whenever you retain your DEX bonus to AC, *and* only against attacks from non-incorporeal sources (i.e. it wouldn't help against a ghost, for example).
Well there was "Shield Parry" from Lords of Madness that gives you your shield bonus to touch attacks.
Would also like.But I would suggest a flat +2 increase to all shields. In historical combat the Warrior with an advantage was the winner, a well constructed shield was often that advantage. The shield must become more relevant. A puny +2 for a piece of wood n' metal that covers half your body? Only a +4 for a tower sheild? The thing is a mobil wall
Can we make Shield bonus apply to touch AC please? I think that this change alone will make shields vastly more popular and practical.
Here is the issue, a touch attack is meant to connect with your or your gear. Since it is primarily used with magic attacks, this makes sense, otherwise platemail armor would basically make you invincible, since none of your skin can be touched. Removing shield from this list, and allowing it to protect you versus touch seems odd. I can see the value of doing so, from a mechanical sense, but I think there are better ways to make a shield worthwhile than this.
The feats presented earlier are a good start.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think this is one of the better ways of making a shield more attractive and on par with the other styles of fighting. It certainly fits the defensive tendencies of a shield user.
As far as ramifications are concerned, is it really that bad if a spell caster has a more difficult time using his touch spells against foes who carry shields? I suppose if every opponent they come across is carrying one it might. And when you consider the plethora of options spell casters have besides touch spells, the position of not allowing shields grant touch AC seems quite unfair to non-spell casters.
I agree with Anthony. Currently to be a Fighter, Barbarian, Melee Ranger or even a Paladin is to use a 2-Hander or 2-Weapons. There is very little benefit what-so-ever to carrying a shield over doing more damage.
The fact that a caster has a harder time to hit that one random shield-user is hardly a deterent to playing a spell caster... what about all the AoEs(Fireball/Lightning Bolt/Cloudkill) and all the Auto-Hits (Force/Missiles).
What this means to me is that your Wizard chosen spells poorly and should be more diverse, as for the Sorcerer he should be more than capable with a crossbow or a wand that doesn't require "touch attacks". How terrible, your caster can't "touch attack" in EVERY SINGLE fight! *sigh*
Your caster can't always Fireball that creature resistant/immune to fire or Lightning Bolt that creature resistant/immune to Electricity, but that doesn't stop people from playing them, nor does it stop them from taking those two spells. It does however encourage them to take a Feat or a Rod that lets them change the energy type of their spells. On occasion the DM is gonna throw out that random monster that someone in the party is going to be ineffective against. You MUST adapt and overcome the obstacle soldier! Go, Go, Go!
Adding shield bonus to "touch attacks" (and maybe reflex saves also) would put shields back on par with 2-Hander and 2-Weapon builds. Just adding these functions as Feats, not necessarily equipment properties, would definitely be the other reasonable solution.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Two things:
1. There was a suggestion in the other shield thread about shield bonus converting into a cover bonus if you were using total defense.
I think I like the basic concept, but I would expand it, and allow shield bonus to count as a cover bonus if you were using any of the following:
a. Total defense action.
b. Fighting defensively.
c. Using Combat Expertise.
All of these assume you are putting on an active defense, moving and blocking behind your weapon and/or shield, and using it AS cover, not just a thing on your arm.
2. I like Daniel Moyer's comments above - yes, shields might give an advantage vs. touch/ranged touch attacks, but even if they do, shields are not exactly common in the game.
Consider that the vast majority of monsters are using some variation of natural weapons, and even of the humanoid/giant NPCs a large proportion (perhaps a majority) are using two-handed weapons, or more rarely TWF or ranged weapons.
What it means in actual gameplay is that against a small slice of foes (the ones who use shields), the touch/ranged-touch specialist is going to either:
a. Suck up a little bit of a disadvantage in those few combats; or,
b. Show versatility and work with some of their other talents instead of being a one-trick pony.
Neither of those seems too much to ask for a situation that will probably only come up in 10% of combats.
|
|
Two things:
1. There was a suggestion in the other shield thread about shield bonus converting into a cover bonus if you were using total defense.
I think I like the basic concept, but I would expand it, and allow shield bonus to count as a cover bonus if you were using any of the following:
a. Total defense action.
b. Fighting defensively.
c. Using Combat Expertise.All of these assume you are putting on an active defense, moving and blocking behind your weapon and/or shield, and using it AS cover, not just a thing on your arm.
I like it. :)
There's one small problem, Jason and Jason, with letting a shield add a cover bonus to AC:
There's no such thing as a cover bonus. Either you have cover, which grants a +4 unnamed bonus to AC, or you have partial cover or improved cover, or you have no cover at all.
So you'll either have to:
-Create a new bonus type (cover) and adapt everything that references cover (Bigby's Interposing Hand, for example) to apply a specific cover bonus instead of just "cover."
-Have shields grant either partial cover, cover, or improved cover when being used with total defense, etc.
Adding a rule like what JBulmahn proposed would lead to some very interesting interactions:
-If I'm wielding a shield, and I have cover against my attacker due to, say, the corner of a wall...
+4 unnamed (cover), +2 heavy shield becomes +4 unnamed (cover), +4 unnamed (total defense).
Thus, I would actually LOSE my shield bonus from declaring total defense.
-If I don't have cover at the moment, I have a large shield bonus to AC, and I declare total defense...
+9 shield (+5 tower shield) becomes +4 total defense, +4 unnamed (cover)
Meaning that total defense actually makes my AC go DOWN.
-If I have cover at the moment, I have a large shield bonus to AC, and I declare total defense...
+9 shield (+5 tower shield) +4 unnamed (cover) becomes +4 unnamed (cover), +4 unnamed (total defense).
In this case, declaring total defense makes my AC go down by quite a bit.
-If I currently have two shield bonuses to AC, such as by holding a shield and casting the Shield spell...
+4 shield (Shield spell) becomes +4 unnamed (cover), +4 shield (Shield spell), +4 unnamed (total defense).
Since even though I'm converting the bonus provided by the shield I'm holding into cover, that doesn't change the fact that I have a shield bonus to AC from another source.
Point being, if you look at the big picture, it gets pretty hairy, and it doesn't work, barring a lot more rewriting than intended.
-Matt
All of these assume you are putting on an active defense, moving and blocking behind your weapon and/or shield, and using it AS cover, not just a thing on your arm.
Or a thing floating in front of you. I see an overwhelming proportion of 2-handed weapon Power Attackers also claim shield bonuses because of that annoying "animated" property (which needs to be expunged from the rulebooks or at least re-valued to be maybe a +5 enhancement equivalent).
snip
I think the size of these shield is being overstated... very useful all the same but overstated too.
I must strongly disagree. This is a peeve of mine and has been for a while. The shield within the game provides only a small bonus. A piece of wood or metal that covers most of your upper body and it only gives the same bonus as padded or leather armor. I have many of the splat books that contain multiple feats to improve the use of a shield, but i feel strongly that the base item must improve. You must spend a feat to gain TWF and its additional attack, but with shields you spend(or are alloted) a feat that only grants you a small none scaling bonus. Please let us make the shield a worth while option again.
Sorry if this a little rambly, i just got back from work.
All of these assume you are putting on an active defense, moving and blocking behind your weapon and/or shield, and using it AS cover, not just a thing on your arm.Or a thing floating in front of you. I see an overwhelming proportion of 2-handed weapon Power Attackers also claim shield bonuses because of that annoying "animated" property (which needs to be expunged from the rulebooks or at least re-valued to be maybe a +5 enhancement equivalent).
Yes, revalue the floaty thing.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
There's one small problem, Jason and Jason, with letting a shield add a cover bonus to AC:
There's no such thing as a cover bonus. Either you have cover, which grants a +4 unnamed bonus to AC, or you have partial cover or improved cover, or you have no cover at all.
[mcsnippification]
Point being, if you look at the big picture, it gets pretty hairy, and it doesn't work, barring a lot more rewriting than intended.
-Matt
It's true... but only if you don't change any of those rules, but that's a funny assumption since we are already changing a rule here (how shields work).
You can either:
1. Change the rule that cover is either yes or no. It becomes just another TYPE of AC bonus. Standard cover is +4 to AC. Shield bonus can either stack with it or not as you like. (there was partial cover in 3.0, and there is still improved cover in 3.5, so there is certainly precedent for different kinds of cover)
In another post I stipulated that using a shield for cover didn't let you hide or avoid AoOs.
2. Instead of going the cover route, if you want to keep that sacrosanct and make things neat and tidy, you make a rule like this:
When using a shield with the total defense action, fighting defensively, or Combat Expertise, your shield bonus to AC is treated as a dodge bonus to AC.
a. Dodge bonus stack, so you avoid any questions there.
b. Dodge bonuses count against touch attacks, which a lot of people like.
c. Dodge bonuses are also lost if you are denied DEX, which makes sense here because you are using your shield actively, essentially targeting it to block enemy strikes. If you can't see them, you lose the benefit. That said, you can always just drop your shield back to its normal "shield bonus" any time by not using total defense, CombExp, or fight defensive.
d. Dodge bonuses also don't necessarily have to do with jumping around with quickness; witness the dwarven defender's defensive stance, which is pretty much the opposite of that and yet gives a dodge bonus to AC.
e. Also, to avoid the monkey business about using two shields, add the following sentence.
When using a shield to gain a dodge bonus to AC, you cannot benefit from any other shield bonus to AC.
f. I would also make a note that the shield spell or an animated shield cannot be used for active defense, because you're not actually wielding it. It's floating around in front of you and blocking stuff on its own.
Like that one better?
Since the other thread got locked (which makes sense) I thought I would jump in on the "shield cover" issue here and try and expand a little on the post I made there.
I totally agree that that a shield-user should be able to do this with Fighting Defensively, Total Defence, or Combat Expertise.
The Question becomes what exactly happens. Here were some of my thoughts:
1. The benefits of having cover simply gets added to the character.
2. The benefits of having cover replace the normal benefits of the shield.
3. The benefits of the shield stay the same, they do not get the AC from cover, but they do get all the other benefits.
I looked up cover in the PFRPG and this is what it gives:
- +4 AC
- +2 Reflex save; only on effects that originate from the "other side" of your cover.
- The ability to make Stealth checks to hide.
- Opponents cannot make attacks of opportunity against you if you have cover in relation to them.
Now, given that the AC bonus is unnamed and unmodified it should apply to touch AC, which is good but that "no AoO's" thing is pretty potent too. Also, it makes sense that you can't just hide behind you shield and remain unseen - full agreement there.
That being said, I think the 1st option of just adding cover is a little strong. The 2nd option has its own problem; at low levels, replacing your +1 or +2 shield bonus with a flat +4 bonus and extras is way too good. At high levels however, gaining a +4 AC for giving up the +7 AC your getting from your +5 Heavy Mithril Shield is a step down. Now the extra bonuses may balance this out but the point I am making is that there's a huge disparity between usefulness at different levels.
So for me, the 3rd option is the best. I would rule that instead of gaining a flat +4, you maintain the regular shield bonus but that it also applies to your touch AC. You also gain the other benefits of cover (save the Stealth thing).
One last point to bring up is the fact that maybe not all shields cover the same amount. I would rule that you can't do this with bucklers at all, light shields grant partial cover, heavy shields grant regular cover and tower shields grant improved cover. Of course, this mostly just applies to the Ref. save bonus using my 3rd option and it requires a bit of a re-write for the tower shield (since it already has cover-granting rules).
So, what do you think?
|
|
First of all - I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that at least some portion of a shield bonus should apply to touch attacks.
I agree with Jason N. that the shield bonus of shiels is a little low. Allow me to share what we have been doing in our games that revamps this all and provides some of what this thread is attempting.
I have increased the SHIELD bonus of shields.
Buckler: +1
Light: +2
Heavy: +3
Tower: +5*
(IMO, Tower needs a +2 better gap than heavy due to it's penalties - i.e. -2 to attacks, and only useable with a feat - or fighter levels; otherwise it's not worth the penalities to only provide one better than a heavy).
Then: all shields other than bucklers provide HALF their SHIELD bonus to Ref Saves and Touch Attacks. (rounded up).
So
Light: +1
Heavy: +2
Tower: +3
Enhancement bonus via magic does NOT improve these secondary bonus; only half of the SHIELD bonus.
Feats like "Shield Focus" that improves the SHIELD bonus would actually improve the secondary bonus.
That all being said - getting an extra 2 points or so to TOUCH attacks will not break the system, as touch attacks have repeatedly been pointed out to be QUITE easy succeed, and this idea which we've been using has given back some credence to shield users and make two-weapon or two-handed style the default choice.
EDIT: One more thing; these bonuses to REF saves are a shield bonus - not a cover bonus - so one with a shield and has cover would stack; thus a Tower Shield wielder in Full Defense Mode has a +5 to Reflex saves. This is the mechanic for the image of the "paladin using his shield to block the incoming Dragon Breath" that is so iconic that someone pointed out.
Robert
|
|
Why is it my casters almost ALWAYS fails touch attacks? Drives me nuts... "I only need a 2 or better to hit you with my specially researched Turn Adventurer to Goo Ray" *insane laughter* "What!? I rolled a 1 AGAIN!"
as touch attacks have repeatedly been pointed out to be QUITE easy succeed,
Robert
Sorry but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.....
:-)
Robert
I think the problem might be the psionic fighter, and not the touch AC mechanic... but I could be wrong.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As the person who played the fighter in question, I agree that it was more to do with touch attacks. I don't recall a single person bringing the fighter's power into question until the later part of the campaign (where msot of the monster's had low touch-AC).
Psionic Fighter with power attack abusing the system. The problem is meta-gaming, use the same thing against the offending player, preferably with a certain cursed mirror...see how he likes fighting himself.
Easy on the insults, I actually read this forum. I don't see how it's metagamming, I wasn't thinking "Hmm, I'll attack this monster because I've seen the entry in the MM and I know it has low touch-AC". I did it for just about every monster faced, even ones I knew would probably have high touch AC. It just so happened most high level monsters have low touch-AC (Since the general rule is that big monsters have low touch AC, and most high level monsters are big).
I honestly think that touch AC's should be addressed. Even if wizards/sorcers got no BAB progression whatsover they would still hit touch armour easily.
Tarrasque - Touch Armour 5
Titan - Touch Armour 8
Solar - Touch AC 14
Pit Fiend - Touch AC 17
Balor - Touch AC 16
So even with no BAB, a wizard/sorcerer with a decent dex is still hitting these monsters, and these are the most powerful monsters presented in the MM. I honestly do think touch AC needs to be addressed, maybe adding half the normal armour and sheild bonuses could help? They'd be offering some degree of protection then.
As for sheilds, I'd feel adding their bonus to reflex saves could be the way to go. Personally I'd even go a step further and have it grant evasion or some such.
|
|
Tarrasque - Touch Armour 5
Titan - Touch Armour 8
Solar - Touch AC 14
Pit Fiend - Touch AC 17
Balor - Touch AC 16So even with no BAB, a wizard/sorcerer with a decent dex is still hitting these monsters, and these are the most powerful monsters presented in the MM. I honestly do think touch AC needs to be addressed, maybe adding half the normal armour and sheild bonuses could help? They'd be offering some degree of protection then.
Be that as it may - these creatures may have a low touch AC....but what are you going to do to them with that touch? They're immune to just about everything and their Spell Resistance is so high, there's a good chance even if you HIT their touch AC, you're still going to do nothing.
That doesn't change the fact that touch AC needs a little adjusting - just wanted to point out that for these creatures - their weakness may be Touch AC, but even that is taken into account considering nothing really hurts them except a good brutal weapon strike that can get over their DR, and hit their NORMAL AC.
So the low touch AC here is mostly just smoke and mirrors.
Robert
So the low touch AC here is mostly just smoke and mirrors.
Robert
Erm...how exactly? There's quite a few good attack spells which ignore spell resistance, and even if they don't it doesn't change the fact that what should be a means of stopping casters from auto-hitting but still giving them slightly lower AC isn't doing it's job.
Besides, when you factor in spells such as wraithstrike, casting spells at these creatures isn't all they need to worry about.
|
|
So the low touch AC here is mostly just smoke and mirrors.
Robert
Erm...how exactly? There's quite a few good attack spells which ignore spell resistance, and even if they don't it doesn't change the fact that what should be a means of stopping casters from auto-hitting but still giving them slightly lower AC isn't doing it's job.
Besides, when you factor in spells such as wraithstrike, casting spells at these creatures isn't all they need to worry about.
I apologize - I dont know that spell "Wraithstrike"
We use only core rule books (the three); I'm sure there were splat book spells that are effective in that way - I have heard of "orb spells" in the complete Arcane that ignore both saves and spell resistance - which is not a balanced spell I think for that reason.
But it's also important to remember that the MM with those creatures was written prior to the splat Complete Books.
Thats the way of WotC; create one book, then create something that usurps the previous, then create a new one to un-usurp the one the usurped the one before it.
But MOST of the core spells (which were the only ones written in cohesion with the MM creatures) would have little or no effect against such creatures with superb Saves or Spell Resistance.
Finally, such a spell that does just so happen to be along the lines of what you're saying would still need to a) be in the casters repertoire, and b) have been prepared that day.
A barbarians great axe is always memorized every day.
But I digress - this thread is getting a bit off-topic and I apologize.
Regardless of how I feel about the spells, Core spells, and the aforementioned creatures and their touch attacks:
I still hold to my opinion that increasing shield bonuses and applying HALF (rounded up) to both REF saves and Touch Attacks.
SHIELD TYPE / SHIELD BONUS / Touch-REF Bonus
Buckler / +1 / +0
Light / +2 / +1
Heavy / +3 / +2
Tower / +5 / +3
Tower Can still be used for full cover granting and additional +2 to REF saves for cover (total +5). Feats that increase shield bonus (Shield Focus for instance), may increase the secondary bonus the shield provides against touch attacks and reflex saves.
Robert
Parrying Shield from LoM really does solve this problem in it's entirety. If we really want to talk about abusive shield use, we need to talk about animated shields.
At any rate, we don't have to change anything really. Generally touch spells aren't even used because it requires a caster to be right next to you, which is generally a terrible idea for the caster. Most ranged touch spells simply deal damage, or at least don't kill you without a save.
Reposted from HERE. Consolidating the information(and answer) provided from the other thread into this one. :)
If you are not, you are more than likely using it to ward off blows, but if you are, you are actually hiding behind it...This would allow the shield to be added to a touch AC without completely overvaluing a shield by adding its bonus to touch.
I'm honestly not seeing how adding a shield bonus to "touch attacks" overvalues it at all... Currently no one is using shields, period.How do you "overvalue" something that has NO value?
I have added a host of feats to make shields a bit more useful, and I am still sorting through feedback to see if I am there yet.Adding a shield bonus to touch AC greatly overvalues a shield's enhancement bonus over armor's, making me hesitant to make such a chance.
I use shields.
Currently "Sword and Board" is the only real way for a fighter to two weapon fight:
Check out shield mastery. Then grab a Bashing Heavy Shield + 5.
You get an off hand attack with no two weapon fighting penalties that does 2d6 + 7 damage before you add in anything like weapon specialization. In addition you get a + 7 to your AC and can bullrush for free if you hit with the shield.