Here's a thought: I think one of Monte Cook's "Arcana" books has an animate weapon or shield spell that's like 2nd or 3rd level and lasts 1 round/level. Taking that as the basis of an animated shield, you'd have 3rd level spell x 5th level caster x 2000 gp x 4 (for 1 round/level becoming use-activated) = 120,000 gp. That's a darn sight more than a +1 bonus cost, even with +9 in other bonuses. In other words, not only does the cartoon-like image of the item grate on the imagination, but the thing does, by reasonable standards, seem to be weofully underpriced.
interesting.
"3rd level spell x 5th level caster x 2000 gp x 4 (for 1 round/level becoming use-activated) = 120,000 gp"Can you explain this to me one more time? I don't have the book/books.
"3rd level spell x 5th level caster x 2000 gp x 4 (for 1 round/level becoming use-activated) = 120,000 gp"
Can you explain this to me one more time? I don't have the book/books.
I'm going by the section in the System Reference Document (SRD) regarding creating magic items, specifically in the table for Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values under "spell effect." Even if you go by the "AC bonus (other)" pricing, an animated heavy shield should run you 2 x 2 x 2500 = 10,000 gp minimum, on top of any enhancement bonuses.
The buckler is strapped to my arm leaving a hand free, I can still cast spells without changing/readying anything and keep my AC bonus while holding the bastard sword in the other hand (still no need to ready or draw anything) free hand can also be used for potions. Of course when I get around to it the buckler will be magic.
I can also switch between one hand an two hand fighting without changing anything and no readying actions.
So baically as a wizard he's sword and mini board an once he rages (cant cast spells anyway) hes a two hand fighter.
I don't mean to be a pain, but when you attack with your bastard sword in both hands, you do realize you lose the buckler's ac bonus and take a penalty to your attacks, right?
Not that it's a big deal, since you're raging.
This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.
Spoiler courtesy Pathfinder Beta, p. 109
The buckler is strapped to my arm leaving a hand free, I can still cast spells without changing/readying anything and keep my AC bonus while holding the bastard sword in the other hand (still no need to ready or draw anything) free hand can also be used for potions. Of course when I get around to it the buckler will be magic.
I can also switch between one hand an two hand fighting without changing anything and no readying actions.
So baically as a wizard he's sword and mini board an once he rages (cant cast spells anyway) hes a two hand fighter.I don't mean to be a pain, but when you attack with your bastard sword in both hands, you do realize you lose the buckler's ac bonus and take a penalty to your attacks, right?
Not that it's a big deal, since you're raging.
** spoiler omitted **
Spoiler courtesy Pathfinder Beta, p. 109
Not that big of a deal, Its more like a mini power attack, drop -1 to hit add several points to damage.
You loose AC when raging anyway.Plus I was thinking, What if I took imporved shield bash. ITlets you retain the AC if you attack with your shield.
But you cant bash with a buckler.
But you are using you buckler arm to attack.
Would improved shield bash let you retain the Buckler AC?
Hmmmm.
When comparing the Animated property versus the Dancing property, it would be useful to keep the following in mind (assuming that PF is keeping the same values as 3.5).
Animated is the equivalent of a +2 bonus for a shield.
Dancing is the equivalent of a +4 bonus for a weapon.
That's a huge difference in monetary/treasure value there!
I use both. The animated shield is only good vs 1 opponent.
The dancing shield operates as the current animated shield.
I did it for the same reasons as posted above. If you have the money, and you can find it, go for it.
Ah, a very good solution.
Yes, the Animated Shield should simply disappear, IMHO.
It is simply a 'compulsory' choice of a lot of my players - and this is a signal of how unbalanced it is as an object.
Why trying to give more love to the 'Sword&Board' when '2-Handed Fighting' can still benefit, too ?
Impose a stacking -2 penalty on the off-hand weapon for TWF with Animated/Dancing Shield. It gets in the way a bit. Same for using TWF with a (third) Dancing weapon.
yea I could see the A.S. getting in the way a bit.
Dancing weapon used to advance and 'go get' the bady guys, Ill have to read the recent writting of it, but I thought it was in an adjacent 5' square, not in yours.
Would improved shield bash let you retain the Buckler AC?
I would definitely allow that, even though that's not the intent behind the feat. Otherwise you could houserule a new feat anyway, it doesn't seem an unreasonable ability.
Would improved shield bash let you retain the Buckler AC?I would definitely allow that, even though that's not the intent behind the feat. Otherwise you could houserule a new feat anyway, it doesn't seem an unreasonable ability.
Yea thats along the lines I was thinking.
the Improved shield bashes intent is you can attack with the shield arm and still retain the ac bonus.
This IS attacking with the shield arm(in conjunction with the other arm)
It's alittel different be it's intent is the same.
I'm going by the section in the System Reference Document (SRD) regarding creating magic items, specifically in the table for Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values under "spell effect." Even if you go by the "AC bonus (other)" pricing, an animated heavy shield should run you 2 x 2 x 2500 = 10,000 gp minimum, on top of any enhancement bonuses."3rd level spell x 5th level caster x 2000 gp x 4 (for 1 round/level becoming use-activated) = 120,000 gp"
Can you explain this to me one more time? I don't have the book/books.
Thanx.
I think I've pretty much said what I wanted to say.
I check out this thread once in a while, but I won't be as acctive anymore as I used to.
Thanx to you all.
|
Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but you are making way to big a fit out of something that is not that big a deal. The Animated shield has been just fine as it is for over a decade, if not more. It is not some new broken item that completely messes up the game for anyone that does not have one. Yes, Wizards can do similar and worse (better).
Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!A nunchuck could chuck as many nuns as a nunchuck could chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns.
Doh!
Shoots hand into the air to declare his epiphany like Lucy Van Pelt, the force of which sends Azzy into a mid-air cartwheel.
"THAT'S IT!"
|
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!A nunchuck could chuck as many nuns as a nunchuck could chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns.
Doh!
Shoots hand into the air to declare his epiphany like Lucy Van Pelt, the force of which sends Azzy into a mid-air cartwheel.
"THAT'S IT!"
Ow.
:D
Shoots hand into the air to declare his epiphany like Lucy Van Pelt, the force of which sends Azzy into a mid-air cartwheel.
"THAT'S IT!"
Ow.
:D
Produces a 'The Doctor Is In' sign.
Dude, I don't know what your problem is, but you are making way to big a fit out of something that is not that big a deal. The Animated shield has been just fine as it is for over a decade, if not more. It is not some new broken item that completely messes up the game for anyone that does not have one. Yes, Wizards can do similar and worse (better).
Since when has the A.S. been around 10 years? 3.x its self isnt that OLD.
I dont remember there being an animated shield in 1ed or 2ed
I saw an A.S. in a 2nd ed splatbook at some point in time, can't remember which one. 3.x has been around a while now though... at least 9 years (2000-2009), depending on the release date it could be 10 years already.
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!A nunchuck could chuck as many nuns as a nunchuck could chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns.
Doh!
Shoots hand into the air to declare his epiphany like Lucy Van Pelt, the force of which sends Azzy into a mid-air cartwheel.
"THAT'S IT!"
Here's a thought: I think one of Monte Cook's "Arcana" books has an animate weapon or shield spell that's like 2nd or 3rd level and lasts 1 round/level. ...
Spiritual Weapon is only 2nd level. It bypasses DR and can attack incorporeal creatures without miss chance as a force object. Making an existing weapon or shield animated wouldn't be 3rd level unless it had other effects mixed in.
|
I have an idea.
The weapon style you take should modify your dex bonus.
A) One handed style (i.e. weapon + free hand)
----> DEX BONUS x 1.5
B) Sword and board OR two-weapon style OR double-weapon style
----> DEX BONUS x 1.0
C) Two handed style
----> DEX BONUS x 0.5
Basically, I'm trying to imagine a guy trying to dodge away from incoming blows. Guy C cannot really shift his weight around, 'cause his hands are tied together on a giant piece of metal (or if the two handed weapon is held in one hand, its great weight is rather unbalancing to him). Guy B has an item in each hand, and can shift his weight pretty easily. Guy A has one relatively light item in one hand, and can actually use it to help shifting his weight around... think monkeys with prehensile tails, or squirels using tails to shift their weight. Guy A can use a fencing stance and keep a greater distance between himself and his foe. Guy A can actually change weapon hand in combat, or grab nearby tree trunks, walls or furniture to push against. etc.
It's late... <yawn> Maybe I'm just delirious here... :P
Well, the idea IS a little bleary, but I do have to agree that the one-handed fighter deserves a little love. It seems that I've never seen anyone take the hit in combat.
How many nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?Two words: RAT FLAILWoodchucks!A nunchuck could chuck as many nuns as a nunchuck could chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns.
Doh!
How many nuns could a nun-chuck chuck if a nun-chuck could Chuck Norris?
|
|
Well, the idea IS a little bleary, but I do have to agree that the one-handed fighter deserves a little love. It seems that I've never seen anyone take the hit in combat.
Yeah.. one handers need more love. They *did* nerf power attack a bit, but high STR two-handers still beat one handers hands down (no pun intended). One handers would benefit a bit from a DEX boost, and two handers could take a bit of hit on DEX bonuses methinks: this could give them pause and make the choice to go two handed style a bit less obvious...
"I need gopher-chucks!"
I replied to this long ago. Must have gotten eaten.
Loved the gopher-chucks scene.
If you've seen enough 70's-80's kung-fu films to be able to appreciate satire of the genre, this film (Kung-Pow: Enter the Fist) is well worth checking out. The sequel Kung Pow 2: Tongue of Fury will be out in 2010.
Here's a thought: I think one of Monte Cook's "Arcana" books has an animate weapon or shield spell that's like 2nd or 3rd level and lasts 1 round/level. ...Spiritual Weapon is only 2nd level. It bypasses DR and can attack incorporeal creatures without miss chance as a force object. Making an existing weapon or shield animated wouldn't be 3rd level unless it had other effects mixed in.
The animated shield has other things mixed in: things like unlimited duration, for example. Persistent spiritual hammer would be an 8th level spell, not 2nd.
First of Steven, great post :-)
I think there are some valid points here but the animated shield just hasnt been a problem in my game, although I suspect many here have more experience then me:
1. Even if you use a animated tower shield, you still take a -2 attack roll penalty. It still beats fighting defensivly though.
Yes. But the -2 is no problem if you want the AC boost and don't care about the -2.
And you don't get -2 if you use a heavy steel shield. So with shiled feats you can still get +9 to AC and no penalty.
2. You still get all the armor check penalties and such,[...]
Yes and no. If you get mithral shiled you don't get armor check penalty. Arcane spell failure is not a problem to a Fighter, Paladin, etc. only to arcane spellcasters.
3. A animated shield can be disarmed, since it is not a melee weapon there is a -4 penalty on the opposed attack roll. I guess it could be considered a melee weapon, even though you cant bash with it, your not holding it, so use a disarm using the grabbing items rule, as you would for an ioun stone, since it would be poorly secured as it is floating within 2 feet of you, that gives you a bonus. Once you take the shield from some one, you can then release it to provide a bonus for yourself, since the shield can be used by anyone who 'upon command' activates it. If it is ruled that a special command word is needed, then you need to find that out. I havn't had to but I guess you could go so far as to rule the opposed attack roll does not include your strength bonus since you are not holding it, but then a quick relflex check might be appropriate to see if you can react in time to grab it.
Disarmed? Perhaps. But to use the shield you must know the command word. And since the shiled is "allways on" the owner don't have to say the command word during battle.
Disarm the shiled, this is a good point, but I prehaps this is metagameing (but I'm not sure). At higher levels you don't want to spend 2 rounds (disarm + activate) to pick someones shiled. You will lose all your attacks 2 rounds a get one (or two?) attack of opportunity. But this is sinteresting :-) I will talk to my DM/GM about this or7and perhaps we can get some feedback from the other posters.
4. Havnt had to use it either, but is an animated shield attended? If it is in use and not touching you, wouldn't it have to save against everything?
Also a good point. Attended? I'm not sure. And I'm not sure it has to save against everything. Even if it does, I don't think this is a big problem. I'm not even sure most DM care about items and their save. If they did, you had to use a save for every item in a room when you use a fireball. Feedback anyone?
5. They can also be sundered easy, as they are not being held. We still use the rule that it is being carried or worn though.
Yes it can be sundered but not easy. It's still a minimum +3 item.
I haven't seen sunder that often in our games though.
Maybe I am all wrong though, but thats why I posted to see if I am.
I think your post is one of the most productive in this thread. I will check out some of the stuff and/or perhaps some of the other posters can help us. Many thanx - Great post :-)
Generally a magic item counts as a part of the person that "owns" it, and can use their saves or its own save whichever is better. If someone rolls a natural 1 on a save throw to a spell some of their gear might be affected, there is a chart and small section about this in the beta, but I haven't spent too much time looking it over all the way yet.
Generally a magic item counts as a part of the person that "owns" it, and can use their saves or its own save whichever is better. If someone rolls a natural 1 on a save throw to a spell some of their gear might be affected, there is a chart and small section about this in the beta, but I haven't spent too much time looking it over all the way yet.
Thanx :-)
As a side note, I dont think Mithral Armor is a deal breaker either. First off, since it seems that some dont enforce the armor penalties anyway, then they probably dont enfore encumbrance either, so the benefits of Mithral armor are largely lost except for armor category. If you do use all the basic rules, then Mithral armor is good, but certainly not unbalanced. The bad guys get to wear it too, and it makes them more mobile and more likely to make checks also.
Well mithral armor is definately a sacred cow and actually pre-exists the game DnD asdoes the vorpal weapon, so can't throw that out.
The Animated Shield however IS relatively new.
And.... As we still posting about this thing??
|
|
Well, sort of. This counts only for the purposes of movement, it actually doesn't change the proficiency requirement to wear it without the non-proficiency penalties. Mithril Full-Plate is still Full-Plate after all....so the benefits of Mithral armor are largely lost except for armor category.
Actually, acording to the WotC 3.5, it does, though I seem to remember PF saying that is goig to change in the final product.
|
|
Actually, acording to the WotC 3.5, it does, though I seem to remember PF saying that is goig to change in the final product.Well, sort of. This counts only for the purposes of movement, it actually doesn't change the proficiency requirement to wear it without the non-proficiency penalties. Mithril Full-Plate is still Full-Plate after all....so the benefits of Mithral armor are largely lost except for armor category.
Wait, which part acording to WotC 3.5? You lost me since you didn't specify which part. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
If you read the entry for Mithril in the DMG (I am unaware of any PFRPG take on mithril) it clearly says that this is only for movement. If there was errata on this, then I am unaware of that at the moment as well and will need to be directed. I would hope Pathfinder keeps it the way that I am reading it, lest Mithril become more problematic.
|
|
What I am saying is that WotC clarified the Mithral armor does, for all purposses make the armor one version lesser. Mithral Full Plate is actually Medium Armor for all purposses, including Proficiency.
(I want to say this is in the Main FAQ, so I am going to search)
I, agree that this should not be the case, but that is not the rule. As far as I know, PF has stated that this will be changing when their book comes out, though.
|
|
Yes it is in the Main 3.5 FAQ, page 53.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
"Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the DMG is less
precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor
proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the
Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor
is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including
proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DMG says, but it’s a
reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s
supported by a number of precedents, including the
descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on
page 220 of the DMG and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the ECS)."
|
|
Yes it is in the Main 3.5 FAQ, page 53.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
"Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a
rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate?
What about a character proficient with medium armor,
such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with
mithral full plate armor?
The description of mithral on page 284 of the DMG is less
precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor
proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the
Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor
is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including
proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the DMG says, but it’s a
reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s
supported by a number of precedents, including the
descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on
page 220 of the DMG and a variety of NPC stat blocks).
Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on
wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s
combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor
without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as
medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on
wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).
The same would be true of any other special material that
uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf,
on page 120 of the ECS)."
Thanks for the clarification. Like the Sage says, its not exactly what it says in the DMG, but its good to see something official on it since it is less than clear. This still reeks of "easy way out" of bad editing to me though. :p
Ive always assumed the "proficency" was with a category not a specific armor. I never even knew there was a question as to that.
|
Incidently, I'm the only person (said I'd seen only one) in my gaming group that has ever taken an Animated Shield. (Darkwood Shield enchanted to +1 plus the Animated). And frankly there are still people in the party with better AC than mine.
I too have only seen one person use an A.S. so they don't seem as common as some people want to believe...
Incidently, I'm the only person (said I'd seen only one) in my gaming group that has ever taken an Animated Shield. (Darkwood Shield enchanted to +1 plus the Animated). [...]
You can't make them +1 since they're not masterwork or treated as masterwork (odd I know, but that's the rules).
What are you on about? The special materials rules have not been reprinted in the Beta yet so we would still be operating out of the 3.5 rules, which are unlike to change overly much. Items made out of darkwood are considered masterwork. Even if they weren't you could add an extra 150gp to the cost and make it masterwork. Either way you can still have a magical darkwood shield (not just the specific item Darkwood Buckler).
Darkmoon vale is FULL of darkwood. Plenty of material for the making of darkwood magical items.
What are you on about? [...]
Sometimes people are wrong. ...so obiosly I'm wrong somtimes to. No need to be hostile.
Disarm + teleport object...........
End of thread.