Viable Sword and board fighter?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Hey guys,

I'm trying something a little different for the first time, and could use a little help. I'm trying to make a good, fun, sword and board fighter. I know I won't be able to do the damage a 2h weapon fighter would do, but for an added +2 bonus to AC, is it really worth not 2 handing a weapon? I'm doing the shield bash/shield slam/shield master feat tree, but I'm still wondering if I'm wasting my time. Does a S&B fighter ever truly become viable? Any hints, tips or help in general would be greatly apprciated.

Cheers


The shield mastery tree combined with the two weapon fighting really makes the improved vital strike a possibility. You'll want a +5 Heavy Bashing Shield for 2d6+7 damage before strength is added in. Shield Slam means you can move people around which makes you partial to battle field control, and if you use a short spear for your other weapon you could grab point blank, precise, and rapid shot too so you're a threat at all ranges (improved vital works on ranged attacks and rapid shot gives you and extra attack back to make up for one of the two you drop).

All in all you'll have 7 points more AC than the two handed fighter and if you do a search for "Benny the Fighter" you'll see that your damage can more than keep up with that of a two handed fighter even after Damage reduction (especially since with shield mastery you are getting extra attacks with none of the two weapon fighting penalties, and an enhancement bonus equal to your shield bonus to AC).


Shield bash fighter can do pretty well, although it's still a crying shame that it's essentially a TWF build; there are no really viable shield-defense-only rules.


Abraham spalding wrote:

The shield mastery tree combined with the two weapon fighting really makes the improved vital strike a possibility. You'll want a +5 Heavy Bashing Shield for 2d6+7 damage before strength is added in. Shield Slam means you can move people around which makes you partial to battle field control, and if you use a short spear for your other weapon you could grab point blank, precise, and rapid shot too so you're a threat at all ranges (improved vital works on ranged attacks and rapid shot gives you and extra attack back to make up for one of the two you drop).

All in all you'll have 7 points more AC than the two handed fighter and if you do a search for "Benny the Fighter" you'll see that your damage can more than keep up with that of a two handed fighter even after Damage reduction (especially since with shield mastery you are getting extra attacks with none of the two weapon fighting penalties, and an enhancement bonus equal to your shield bonus to AC).

How does a shield do 2d6+7 before strength?


A Heavy Spiked shield with the Bashing property does 2d6 damage.

The shield mastery feat (from the beta) does two things for you:

"You do not suffer any penalties on attack
rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another
weapon."

So no penalties for two weapon fighting which is really nice. Then the icing on the cake:

"Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and
damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement
bonus."

So if you have a +5 shield that gives you a shield bonus of +7 which means you get +7 to hit, and + 7 on damage...

Which means 2d6+7 off of a Heavy Spiked Shield + 5.


ahhhhhhhh, alrighty then!

Thanks a ton for the help!


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shield bash fighter can do pretty well, although it's still a crying shame that it's essentially a TWF build; there are no really viable shield-defense-only rules.

I would really like a feat that allows you to use the shield as an active parrying device: Something where you get to make an attack roll against an incoming attack and if your attack roll is higher the damage goes to the shield instead of to you (or is completely deflected like with deflect arrows).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been thinking on the shield issue for a while now and have a few house rules I'll be using if PFRPG doesn't already address the problems. Specifically, I want a shield fighter to have better defensive options than a 2-hander or TWF. Being able to deal damage with the shield is great, but not the historical purpose of most shields, i.e. being part of active defense. This is generally incorporated into a character's defense through a simple AC bonus, and I think that's fine for general use. However, I want a trained user to have the option of purposely blocking an attack (or attacks). To that end, I'm thinking of feats along these lines:

Shield Block
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: As an Immediate Action, you may attempt to block an incoming melee or ranged attack. Roll 1d20 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity modifier + Shield Bonus to AC (including Enhancement bonuses, if any). You may use this result or your normal AC, whichever is higher, against the incoming attack. A natural 1 does not count as an automatic failure.
Special: You may not use this feat while flat-footed.

Shield Defense
Prerequisite: Combat Reflexes, Shield Block
Benefit: You may attempt to block a number of incoming melee or ranged attacks equal to your Dexterity bonus. Roll 1d20 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity modifier + Shield Bonus to AC (including Enhancement bonuses, if any). You may use this result or your normal AC, whichever is higher, against the incoming attack. A natural 1 does not count as an automatic failure.
Special: You may use this feat while flat-footed.

Shield Sanctum
Prerequisite: Shield Block, Shield Save
Benefit: As an Immediate Action, you may attempt to protect another from harm by strategically placing your shield. Roll 1d20 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity modifier + Shield Bonus to AC (including Enhancement bonuses, if any). The defending party may use this result in place of AC or rather than rolling a Reflex saving throw. On a natural 1, you become the target of the attack or effect.
Special: You may not use this feat while flat-footed.

Shield Save
Prerequisite: Lightning Reflexes, Shield Block
Benefit: As an Immediate Action, you may attempt to avoid harm by strategically placing your shield. Roll 1d20 + Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity modifier + Shield Bonus to AC (including Enhancement bonuses, if any) and use this result instead of your Reflex saving throw. A natural 1 does not count as an automatic failure.
Special: You may not use this feat while flat-footed.


Abraham spalding wrote:

A Heavy Spiked shield with the Bashing property does 2d6 damage.

The shield mastery feat (from the beta) does two things for you:

"You do not suffer any penalties on attack
rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another
weapon."

So no penalties for two weapon fighting which is really nice. Then the icing on the cake:

"Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and
damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement
bonus."

So if you have a +5 shield that gives you a shield bonus of +7 which means you get +7 to hit, and + 7 on damage...

Which means 2d6+7 off of a Heavy Spiked Shield + 5.

actually it gives +5 to hit-damage, because it adds enchantment bonus of shield to weapon properties.

But as you all say it is mostly TWF build, so you must consider Tempest PrC so you can aply your primari weapon feats to your shield bash.


Trance-Zg wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

A Heavy Spiked shield with the Bashing property does 2d6 damage.

The shield mastery feat (from the beta) does two things for you:

"You do not suffer any penalties on attack
rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another
weapon."

So no penalties for two weapon fighting which is really nice. Then the icing on the cake:

"Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and
damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement
bonus
."

So if you have a +5 shield that gives you a shield bonus of +7 which means you get +7 to hit, and + 7 on damage...

Which means 2d6+7 off of a Heavy Spiked Shield + 5.

actually it gives +5 to hit-damage, because it adds enchantment bonus of shield to weapon properties.

But as you all say it is mostly TWF build, so you must consider Tempest PrC so you can aply your primari weapon feats to your shield bash.

The words, they say differently. The shield bonus is the total bonus the shield gives to AC, not the enhancement bonus of the shield.

The Heavy shield gives a + 2 Shield bonus to AC. A +5 heavy shield gives a +7 Shield bonus to AC. Since the shield bonus is + 7, the bonus to hit and to damage is also +7.


Shield Mastery (and maybe other shield feats) should be taken out and shot. The best two-weapon fighter should be someone using two weapons, not someone with weapon and shield.

Seriously: Not getting two-weapon penalties at all, keeping the shield bonus even when attacking with it as a weapon, and getting a cheap enhancement bonus for your weapon as well? No way in hell.

I had to ban several of those feats recently when I was made aware of their effect (my group's powergamer turned in his newest build for our soon-to-be-starting Second Darkness campaign).

I can see sword&board becoming really good defenders, with new feats (like those above) that let you use your shield for more than just increasing your non-touch AC.

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:
Shield Mastery (and maybe other shield feats) should be taken out and shot. The best two-weapon fighter should be someone using two weapons, not someone with weapon and shield.

Might it perhaps be the problem that TWF is too weak?


I was thinking of a "too anoying to ignore" approach for a weapon and shield fighter.

Combat Reflexes
Step Up (New Pathfinder RPG Feat)
Shall Not Pass (New Pathfinder RPG Feat)
Vexing Flanker (PHBII)
Adaptable Flanker (PHBII)
Mage Slayer (Complete Arcane)

If they try to move past you, you can stop them.

If they try to 5 foot away from you, you'll follow them.

You can be considered to be in a square you threaten for flanking purposes, happiness if you have a friend in melee, and extra happiness if they are a rogue.

When you are flanking you get +4 instead of +2 to hit.

Top it off with your enemies being unable to cast defensively at all if you threaten them, and you are one annoying offspring of unwed parents ;)

And really, what's the point of having a high AC if you aren't irritating enough for the enemies to want to kill?

Eric


GeraintElberion wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Shield Mastery (and maybe other shield feats) should be taken out and shot. The best two-weapon fighter should be someone using two weapons, not someone with weapon and shield.
Might it perhaps be the problem that TWF is too weak?

Maybe.

I don't think it's too weak.

Historically, TWF was rarely seen in combat. Certainly not in mass combat between trainede armies. Occasionally, in single duels, the sword/rapier paired with dagger/main gauche was fairly popular, but when that same guy joined the local army and marched off to war, he put away the off-hand weapon and grabbed a shield like everyone else.

TWF should not be overpowered. It should he held in check.

S&B should be able to attack with the shield without it becoming a suicide attack. Shield users bashed each other all over medieval battlefields.

But shield bashing was meant to get an opponent off balance, or to slap away his own shield to create an opening for you to strike with your weapon. Sure, if an opening presented itself to ram your foe's teeth down his throad with your shield, you'd take it. But shields were generally big and slow and clumsy compared to a sword or spear, so the likelihood that you can clobber your foe with your shield more effectively than you could with your weapon was pretty slim.

So historically speaking, shields were defense first, secondary CMB-type offense second, and damage-dealing offense last.

I'm all for feats or combat mechanics that make shields more defensive. I'm also all for mechanics that let you use your shield to bash away the opponent's shield, or get him off balance (flat-footed?) for a single attack.

But feats that let you do more damage with a shield than you would with a second weapon are just silly.

And combat mechanics that force you to sacrifice your own defense to use your shield as anyting other than a piece of armor affixed to your arm are also silly.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
DM_Blake wrote:
I'm also all for mechanics that let you ... get him off balance (flat-footed?) for a single attack.

Now that's a cool idea. Could work like Feint. Normally it would be a standard action and he'd be flat footed to your next round attack, but with an Improved feat, you could do it as a move action and still get your attack.


Mosaic wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
I'm also all for mechanics that let you ... get him off balance (flat-footed?) for a single attack.
Now that's a cool idea. Could work like Feint. Normally it would be a standard action and he'd be flat footed to your next round attack, but with an Improved feat, you could do it as a move action and still get your attack.

Thanks.

I just thought of it just then when I typed it, and I liked it as soon as the words hit the screen. Now I'm mulling it over thinking about how to include it as a houserule without overpowering it or worse, making it so weak that it becomes another useless combat mechanic that nobody uses.

My big fear is the interaction between making someone flat-footed and having a rogue in the group who can really take advantage of it.

My secondary fear is the other consequences of being flat-footed, like no attacks of opportunity or instant actions.

All of which seems, from a POV of real shield usage, to be quite appropriate for ramming someone with a big bulky shield powered by a big bulky fighter lunging into his foe, but it may be too much for a balanced game mechanic.

Mulling... Mulling... Mulling...


I find that between feats present in the Pathfinder RPG and the 3.5 PHB 2, a sword and board build is quite viable. The trick is to not forsake mobility.


DM_Blake wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
Shield Mastery (and maybe other shield feats) should be taken out and shot. The best two-weapon fighter should be someone using two weapons, not someone with weapon and shield.
Might it perhaps be the problem that TWF is too weak?

Maybe.

I don't think it's too weak.

Historically, TWF was rarely seen in combat. Certainly not in mass combat between trainede armies. Occasionally, in single duels, the sword/rapier paired with dagger/main gauche was fairly popular, but when that same guy joined the local army and marched off to war, he put away the off-hand weapon and grabbed a shield like everyone else.

TWF should not be overpowered. It should he held in check.

S&B should be able to attack with the shield without it becoming a suicide attack. Shield users bashed each other all over medieval battlefields.

But shield bashing was meant to get an opponent off balance, or to slap away his own shield to create an opening for you to strike with your weapon. Sure, if an opening presented itself to ram your foe's teeth down his throad with your shield, you'd take it. But shields were generally big and slow and clumsy compared to a sword or spear, so the likelihood that you can clobber your foe with your shield more effectively than you could with your weapon was pretty slim.

So historically speaking, shields were defense first, secondary CMB-type offense second, and damage-dealing offense last.

I'm all for feats or combat mechanics that make shields more defensive. I'm also all for mechanics that let you use your shield to bash away the opponent's shield, or get him off balance (flat-footed?) for a single attack.

But feats that let you do more damage with a shield than you would with a second weapon are just silly.

And combat mechanics that force you to sacrifice your own defense to use your shield as anyting other than a piece of armor affixed to your arm are also silly.

Another use of a shield in one on one combat was to prevent your opponent from seeing a stab at their foot when you tied up their shield with yours. If you sucessfully stabbed the foot you opponent would bleed out in less than a minute in most cases. Favorite tactic of Scottish warriors.

Doug


GeraintElberion wrote:


Might it perhaps be the problem that TWF is too weak?

No, the problem lies with doing almost as much damage with your shield than you'd do with your greatsword - and you get all those attacks with your longsword thrown in as icing. And all that extra AC.


I think keeping the shield feats as is could be ok, with the following added in, "You may only make one shield bash a round, as the shield is heavier, and clumsier than other weapons."

So yeah you could get one mighty wallop out of your shield each round, but that would be the only attack you get out of the shield, where as the 'regular' two weapon fighter can get all of his extra attacks with his weapon.

Silver Crusade

DM_Blake wrote:


But shield bashing was meant to get an opponent off balance, or to slap away his own shield to create an opening for you to strike with your weapon. Sure, if an opening presented itself to ram your foe's teeth down his throad with your shield, you'd take it. But shields were generally big and slow and clumsy compared to a sword or spear, so the likelihood that you can clobber your foe with your shield more effectively than you could with your weapon was pretty slim.

So historically speaking, shields were defense first, secondary CMB-type offense second, and damage-dealing offense last.

Hmm, this got me thinking. Maybe a feat like this for Pathfinder...

Shield Combat Expert

When wielding a light or heavy shield, you may add the shield's AC bonus (base and enhancement) to any CMB checks made while using your shield during a bull rush or overrun. This bonus also applies when using your shield to disarm an opponent's shield. You do not lose your shield's AC bonus while performing any of these maneuvers.

Thoughts?


I be an Axe n Board FTR!!!

I be a slaughter monger!!!

(check the profile)


A lot of the problem with sword-n-board fighting I think comes from having the Bashing enhancement. As previously mentioned by Kae, your shield (95% of the time being an off-hand attack to begin with) shouldn't be able to do such a substantial amount of damage, and especially not such a higher amount than your sword, axe, what have you. I'm all for shield bashing tactics being usable in game, but the trade-off between SaB vs TWF should be higher AC, higher damage, respectively.

Ultimately, my vote would be for shields to be a viable, low damage off-hand attack, but with some decent CMB options in place to utilize it more as a tactical option when the situation presents itself.

Sovereign Court

KaeYoss wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:


Might it perhaps be the problem that TWF is too weak?

No, the problem lies with doing almost as much damage with your shield than you'd do with your greatsword - and you get all those attacks with your longsword thrown in as icing. And all that extra AC.

I'm just whinging because every TWF character I've created has become "Flurry-of-misses."

If you just build up to the feats disruptive, greater shield focus and greater shield mastery (an extra +2 AC, DR 4/- and you really annoy casters) then I think you've got a good sword and board who uses his shield for defence.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

The rules do not reflect this, but where the lack of a shield should be most keenly felt is against missile fire. As pointed out above, TWF was historically rare in combat between formed units, especially if they might be facing massed volley fire.

Long ago I had a house rule that split your AC into AC vs melee and AC vs missle. In this house rule, you could double your shield bonus to AC against missiles if you were aware of the firer (and able to act, if you were under a hold person spell, you could not do this). In addition, certain bonuses such as the feat bonus for two weapon defense didn't work against missile fire.

Dark Archive

Rhumdeas wrote:

A lot of the problem with sword-n-board fighting I think comes from having the Bashing enhancement. As previously mentioned by Kae, your shield (95% of the time being an off-hand attack to begin with) shouldn't be able to do such a substantial amount of damage, and especially not such a higher amount than your sword, axe, what have you. I'm all for shield bashing tactics being usable in game, but the trade-off between SaB vs TWF should be higher AC, higher damage, respectively.

Ultimately, my vote would be for shields to be a viable, low damage off-hand attack, but with some decent CMB options in place to utilize it more as a tactical option when the situation presents itself.

This, or what Abraham suggested... I'd go with either of them (tactical options to utilize CMB and either multiple attacks for low damage or one huge "wallop" per round).


GeraintElberion wrote:

I'm just whinging because every TWF character I've created has become "Flurry-of-misses."

That sounds more like two-weapon fighting needs a fix (or maybe your optimisation skills - I've seen it work pretty well a couple of times), not that sword-and-board need to be elevated to the best on both offense AND defense.


I think there are some misconceptions about Shield Mastery and the Shield Slam chain in general.

Abraham spalding wrote:

The Heavy shield gives a + 2 Shield bonus to AC. A +5 heavy shield gives a +7 Shield bonus to AC. Since the shield bonus is + 7, the bonus to hit and to damage is also +7.

Actually, this is not completely true. A +5 Heavy Shield gives a +7 Shield bonus to AC ? This is debatable, since it comes from a +2 Shield bonus and a +5 Enhancement bonus to the Shield. And Shield Mastery says "Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.".

Can a GM allow the whole Shield bonus (Shield + Enhancement) to the hit/damage ? Sure, he could be right. Can another GM allow ONLY the real Shield bonus (+2, in this case) ? Sure, he could be right as well. The Shield Mastery feat is not extremely clear in this; it doesn't say that you apply the Shield bonus AND the Enhancement bonus to Shield to attack/damage, however, so it could be wise (and balanced) to allow only the 'natural' Shield bonus to attack/damage. Of course, Shield Focus and Greater Shield focus give a 'Shield' bonus to the Shield (for a total of additional +2 if you take both feats), so those are added as well.

The Shield Mastery feat says then "Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.". This cuts off the presence of Enhancement bonuses to hit/damage added to the Shield, since you would use only the better of the two. Only a +5 (Offensive Enhancement) Heavy Shield would deal more damage than a regular Heavy Shield + Sh.Focus + Gr.Sh.Focus (+4 Shield). At best, a Bashing Spiked Heavy +5 (Offensive) Shield would deal 2d6+5 damage.

Finally, the whole 'Shield Bash' thing. The rules are not extremely clear on how this works. They say that you consider the Shield an off-hand weapon (light or one-handed) and you take the penalty to the hit roll. They do not mention the main, real weapon, however; we don't really know if you take the same penalties to your main hand (as if in a real TWF) or not. We can only assume that the main hand do not take penalties from two factors: 1)The 'shield bash' indication in both Heavy and Light Shield does not mention a penalty to the primary hand (while double weapons mention that "You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon."); 2) the Shield Mastery feat says that you do not incur in the common penalties with the Shield only - and it would be extremely broken if you do not have penalties only with the Off-Hand, while you keep penalties with the Main hand (an example would be a Longsword + Heavy Shield; no penalties with the Shield, and -4 with the Longsword, since the HS is a One-Handed weapon...).
Then, the 'shield bash' intro says that "You can bash an opponent with a xxx shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.", then says the penalties you take... but do not say anything about iterative attacks. Of course, a GM could allow them if a character takes Imp.TWF and Gr.TWF; but it would not be unbalaced at all to say that a Shield Bash is an additional attack that follows different rules (and in fact, it does) more similar to those of a combo Manufactured Weapon + Natural Weapon (where you can add Natural Weapons to the iterative attacks; the manufactured weapons do not take penalties, while the Natural weapons do, and - of course - cannot do iterative attacks).
This, overall, is a 'special quality' of Shields, not a real TWF thingy...

Just my 2c.


By that (very) contorted logic you apply your STR isn't affected by an enhancement bonus to Str.

The magic enhancements enhance the thing they stack on . A belt of Strength +4 gives you +4 str. You don't roll damage and not include the bonus from the belt of strength becuase it "Isn't your str, but an enhancement bonus on your strength which the rules don't clearly state you get to add to damage." (which they don't by the way), same thing with the enhancement bonus on a shield or armor (or weapon, a +1 weapon does dx+1 damage, not dx(+1 counted seperately) damage). A +5 heavy shield has a + 2 shield bonus then a +5 shield enhancement bonus which gives a total shield bonus of +7, since enhancement bonuses are counted on to/with the variable they enhance.

As for casting the shield spell and trying to use that as a weapon, that is a strawman argument. First the shield spell creates a tower shield like effect, since you can't bash with tower shields...

As to the main weapon, Two weapon fighting doesn't stat which weapon is your main weapon either, so obiviously if you are fighting with a one handed weapon and a light weapon the one handed weapon must be your off handed weapon.

Actually the shield mastery states you don't take any penalties on the shield attack while wielding another weapon, so if you want to say that the other weapon still has penalties, I think that would be a fair (and RAW) argument.


Abraham spalding wrote:
stuff

Well, it's true that a Shield bonus is based on (Base Shield Bonus + Feats + Enhancement Shield Bonuses). I was merely pointing out that Shield Mastery specifically says that you use the shield's Shield bonus as a bonus to attack and damage, and that - as a RAI, I admit - it could be wise to stick to the letter in this specific case only, since there are some issues on the peak of damage of the feat itself.

I see that we are on the same idea regarding the number of maximum attacks a Shield Bash could make - although through different means.

Regarding the 'Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.', I think that we all can agree on the fact that they should not stack with REAL Enhancement bonuses to hit/damage the Shield already possesses.

Overall however, the Final PFRPG is already in print (as far as I know), so if this issues were not already made present through the playtest, we can only argue how to solve them per Rules As Intended (an extra 'buff' to Sword'n'Boarders, not a NUKE), not per RAW (IMHO).


OK, reading the Armor and Shield description in the rules, I find stuff like this:

Pathfinder Beta, page 340 wrote:
Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses.
Pathfinder Beta, page 340 wrote:
Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash.
Pathfinder Beta, page 340 wrote:
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

All this stuff points to the fact that rulebook sees magical bonus on a shield as "enhancement" bonus, not as "shield" bonus.

Further, to read between the lines (yes, reading between the lines can be open to misinterpretation, but bear with me):

Shield Slam, Pathfinder Beta, page 94 wrote:
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.

Now, I believe that if this feat were meant to use the total shield+enhancement bonus, it would say so. Something like: "Add your shield’s total bonus (shield bonus + enhancement bonus) to attacks and damage rolls..."

But it doesn't say that.

It specifically goes to the trouble to say "shield's shield bonus" which is actually an awkward thing to say unless it is meant to be very specific.

Since a +3 magical heavy steel shield has a +2 shield bonus and a +3 enhancement bonus for a +5 total bonus, I don't believe the RAW description of Shield Slam means anything other than what it says: apply the +2 shield bonus.

If it meant something else, I think it would say something else.

Someone mentioned that the wording of this feat is unclear.

I suggest that the wording of the feat is perfectly clear, and the only lack of clarity comes from our own minds, when we substitue incorrect inferences that are incompatible with the actual wording.

But cutting away all the baggage, the feat very specifically says what it intends to say, "shield bonus" and very specifically does not include any other bonuses, such as the shield's enhancement bonus, or your DEX bonus, or your Will Save bonus, or your bonus spells/day, or yoru dwarven racial bonus to taste-based perception rolls, or any other bonus.

As for the argument that has been made that an enhancement bonus to your STR is a bonus that applies any time you use your strength, so an enhancement bonus to your shield is a bonus that applies any time you use your shield, well, this just isn't true.

One, you're comparing apples and oragnges. Your STR is a statistic, just like your AC and your Movement Rate and your Perception skill. But, your Shield Bonus is not a statistic, it's a bonus. Rules for how we deal with statistics are not the same rules for how we deal with bonuses.

Two, different bonuses are treated differently. Just look at the rules for stacking bonuses. The bonus type is critical in determining how bonuses stack, add, or cancel out. And the Shield Bonus of a shield is one bonus type, and the Enhancement Bonus of a shield is a different bonus type. This is a very important point. If a magical shield has a +2 shield bonus and a +3 magical enhancement bonus, the shield has a +5 total bonus. But if the same shield has a +2 shield bonus and a +3 magical shield bonus, the shield will only have a total bonus of +3.

Ergo, shield bonus and enhancement bonus are not the same thing. One does not add to the other. And the feat specifies to use just one of those bonuses when calculating attack and damage rolls.

It all seems very clear to me.

QED

Hope this helps.

Sovereign Court

Hi everyone in this discussion thread,

this is a very enlightening thread and comes very close to something I'd appreciate to see after publication of the final PFRPG rules, too. A collection/ thread of interesting builds incorporating both the existing 3.5 rules (-> PHB II !) and new PFRPG rules - for inspiration and/ or warning examples for any DM with power gamer players!

But back to topic. I agree with most of the ideass above on how to boost felt "effectiveness" of the weapon & shield combo, but in my eyes the original thread title wasn't answered satisfyingly yet:

Is there any viable solution to realize above mentioned requests, i.e. sacrificing damage output for improved combat manoeuvring or improved defencive abilities?

I'd really like to see my worries of "twf = every power gamer's favourite combo" being proved wrong and see the w&s combo have their own (rulewise) reason of existence...

Günther

Sovereign Court

Add me to the throng of people wanting Shield feats that result in better defense. Would also help some of the AC problems at higher level (where you are often autohit and additional AC is too expensive).

Liberty's Edge

Bagpuss wrote:
Add me to the throng of people wanting Shield feats that result in better defense. Would also help some of the AC problems at higher level (where you are often autohit and additional AC is too expensive).

Same here. PHB II (3.5 v) at least had Shield Focus. I think there should be some Legionairy type feats as well. If you ready an action to parry with your shield you get an attack of opportunity if you're also wielding a light weapon.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

The new feats that Jason posted on the boards a while back included some new shield feats that parallelled the weapon focus series of feats. If I recall, they were something like:

Shield Focus - +1 to AC using shield
Greater Sheild Focus - requires 8th level fighter, additional +1 to AC using shield
Shield Mastery - DR 2/- using shield, requires 4th level fighter
Greater Shield Mastery - additional DR 2/- using shield, requires 12th level fighter

Also, the DR stacks with other untyped DR, such as from a barbarian or adamantine armor.

EDITED for correctness


Guennarr wrote:

But back to topic. I agree with most of the ideass above on how to boost felt "effectiveness" of the weapon & shield combo, but in my eyes the original thread title wasn't answered satisfyingly yet:

Is there any viable solution to realize above mentioned requests, i.e. sacrificing damage output for improved combat manoeuvring or improved defencive abilities?

I'd really like to see my worries of "twf = every power gamer's favourite combo" being proved wrong and see the w&s combo have their own (rulewise) reason of existence...

Günther

The long answer is already in this thread. All this discussion to provide houserules and new feats/mechanics to supplement the failed sword+shield build is quite revealing.

The short answer is: No.

The defensive sword+shield combo doesn't exist in the rules. The amount of damage output you sacrifice is not compensated by the little boost in AC.

Over the long haul, doing less damage means your enemies live longer and damage you more, and without sufficient AC compensation to mitigate that extra damage, you end up taking more damage per fight.

Which means you end up requiring more healing per fight.

Which means you end up draining the party's healing resources faster.

Which means your party spends less time rescuing damsels and more time snoozing at the duegeon entrance.


JoelF847 wrote:

The new feats that Jason posted on the boards a while back included some new shield feats that parallelled the weapon focus series of feats. If I recall, they were something like:

Shield Focus - +1 to AC using shield
Greater Sheild Focus - requires 8th level fighter, additional +1 to AC using shield
Shield Mastery - DR 1/- using shield, requires 4th level fighter
Greater Shield Mastery - DR 2/- using shield, requires 12th level fighter

Fixed.

Those feats are OK, but I hate that they are only for fighters, except the first one, Shield Focus, which is for everyone.

Do all rangers dual wield? Shields aren't an option?

Do paladins not use shields?

What if a barbarian wants to use a shield, like a classical viking warrior (those guys could rage with the best of them)?

Clerics might even want more defense out of a shield.

IMO, there are too many Fighter-only feats. There were too many in 3.x. We should take all these feats and strike them from the feat list and turn them into class abilities, something like this:

"At 4th level, and every even level thereafter, a fighter can gain a bonus feat, or he can choose from the following abilities instead of selecting a feat."

(on the other hand, I'm for more feats, not less, and long ago I plundered all the core classes and official PrCs and sripped their class abilities and turned most of them into feats, at least where it seemed applicable. Major class abilities, like spellcasting, didn't get converted into feats.)

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

I agree that the shield ones shouldn't be fighter only, and hopefully in the final version they won't be. Another way around it for rangers would be to add a sword and board combat style that had those feats on the list, and as class ability granted feats, they'd be able to ignore requirements.

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:
I agree that the shield ones shouldn't be fighter only, and hopefully in the final version they won't be. Another way around it for rangers would be to add a sword and board combat style that had those feats on the list, and as class ability granted feats, they'd be able to ignore requirements.

But that would still leave the Paladin, perhaps the most Iconic sword and board we have, without access to those feats. That's not counting Clerics or Barbarians (no I have never seen a barbarian use a shield, but that doesn't mean they should be written off) Fighter only feats are a great concept, however, the nature of the Fighter is such that every combination of feats winds up touching on another classes style.


Brutesquad07 wrote:
But that would still leave the Paladin, perhaps the most Iconic sword and board we have, without access to those feats.

Aren't the Paladins going to be using TWF now with the new smite rules? ;)


I agree with the shield feats for anyone but I think they should be based on BAC. If you have +4 you can take shield focus, greater shield focus and +8 for example. So the cleric could take these feat too but they'd have to but they'd get them at 6th level and 11th. The Paladin could still take the feats but would do so at the expense of other feats.


Eric Mason 37 wrote:
Brutesquad07 wrote:
But that would still leave the Paladin, perhaps the most Iconic sword and board we have, without access to those feats.
Aren't the Paladins going to be using TWF now with the new smite rules? ;)

It all comes together. Some paladin fanboy is pushing all this: Make sword and board into the best two-weapon style, and make paladins good at two-weapon fighting. What you get is an untouchable juggernaught of destruction. Unstoppable force and immovable barrier rolled all into one.


DM_Blake wrote:
Guennarr wrote:

But back to topic. I agree with most of the ideass above on how to boost felt "effectiveness" of the weapon & shield combo, but in my eyes the original thread title wasn't answered satisfyingly yet:

Is there any viable solution to realize above mentioned requests, i.e. sacrificing damage output for improved combat manoeuvring or improved defencive abilities?

I'd really like to see my worries of "twf = every power gamer's favourite combo" being proved wrong and see the w&s combo have their own (rulewise) reason of existence...

Günther

The long answer is already in this thread. All this discussion to provide houserules and new feats/mechanics to supplement the failed sword+shield build is quite revealing.

The short answer is: No.

The defensive sword+shield combo doesn't exist in the rules. The amount of damage output you sacrifice is not compensated by the little boost in AC.

Over the long haul, doing less damage means your enemies live longer and damage you more, and without sufficient AC compensation to mitigate that extra damage, you end up taking more damage per fight.

Which means you end up requiring more healing per fight.

Which means you end up draining the party's healing resources faster.

Which means your party spends less time rescuing damsels and more time snoozing at the duegeon entrance.

Did you look at Grumble Grog's stats? You're not giving up that much damage, for a LOT more protection...

FIFTY-TWO ARMOR CLASS...and it could go higher...potion of barkskin, drop into combat expertise stance...

Liberty's Edge

Hey, something just dawned on me as a shield feat. Whaddya think?

New Feat:
Cover Your Eyes
Prereq: Shield Proficiency, Iron Will
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to your will saves against charm and domination effects until the beginning of your next turn. If you choose to do so you no longer may add your shield bonus to your armor class during any turn when you use this feat.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Studpuffin wrote:

Hey, something just dawned on me as a shield feat. Whaddya think?

New Feat:
Cover Your Eyes
Prereq: Shield Proficiency, Iron Will
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to your will saves against charm and domination effects until the beginning of your next turn. If you choose to do so you no longer may add your shield bonus to your armor class during any turn when you use this feat.

I can see something like this as a bonus against gaze attacks maybe, but most charm or domination effects don't require any sort of eye to eye contact. The target can easily not even be aware of the caster.


Grumble Grog wrote:

Did you look at Grumble Grog's stats? You're not giving up that much damage, for a LOT more protection...

FIFTY-TWO ARMOR CLASS...and it could go higher...potion of barkskin, drop into combat expertise stance...

Now I have.

Quite impressive.

Some errors:

You have added your +5 enhancement from your axe to both your AC and your +hit/damage. You have to pick one or the other (or divide it to some of one and some of the other). You can't be +5 on both.

Both the Amulet of Natural Armor and the Potion of Barkskin give an enhancement bonus to natural armor and therefore they don't stack, per the description of Barkskin. You didn't actually include that in your 52 AC, but you did list it as a footnote to get even more AC, but it won't stack.

Now some notes:

Your dodge bonus is only against one foe, so it isn't always 52.

Only fighters can get this AC, since 5 points of AC come from fighter-only abilities/feats.

You only get two attacks per round, three if you count your shield bash, but I would barely count it because even if it hits, 1d6+7 damage is pretty weak at level 20, though the bullrush might be useful.

If you dump your axe enhancement into AC, +33 to hit at level 20 is unimpressive for a melee class. Especially unimpressive for a fighter who gets a bonus +5 with his weapon of choice.

If you dump your axe enhancement into to hit/damage rolls, then your AC is only 45/47 with dodge. Still nice, but not the 52 you advertised.

Compared against the damage output of a 2-h wielding power attacker or a dual-wielding vital striker, those guys would be doing as much as 50% more damage per round, but not suffering 50% less AC for it.

And finally, the kind of gear you're using isn't really available until very late in levels, and some of the defensive feats as well. Grumble Grog's level 10 build would be far more handicapped than he is at level 20.

But still, I have to say, even being able to get a 52 AC against your primary foe is very well done. Pathfinder really beefed up the fighter.

Credit where credit is due: Grumble Grog seems to be a viable turtle build, and probably wouldn't be a drain on the party's resources, especially in later levels when it all comes together. Well done; it's not easy putting together a turtle in D&D.

Liberty's Edge

JoelF847 wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:

Hey, something just dawned on me as a shield feat. Whaddya think?

New Feat:
Cover Your Eyes
Prereq: Shield Proficiency, Iron Will
Benefit: You may add your shield bonus to your will saves against charm and domination effects until the beginning of your next turn. If you choose to do so you no longer may add your shield bonus to your armor class during any turn when you use this feat.

I can see something like this as a bonus against gaze attacks maybe, but most charm or domination effects don't require any sort of eye to eye contact. The target can easily not even be aware of the caster.

It seemed too weak against just gaze attacks, and it was just off the top of my head. They'd definitely have to be aware of the spell being cast to use the feat. Perhaps instead it'll just let you add your shield's enhancement bonus...

Again, it was just a thought. :D


DM_Blake wrote:
Grumble Grog wrote:

Did you look at Grumble Grog's stats? You're not giving up that much damage, for a LOT more protection...

FIFTY-TWO ARMOR CLASS...and it could go higher...potion of barkskin, drop into combat expertise stance...

Now I have.

Quite impressive.

Some errors:

You have added your +5 enhancement from your axe to both your AC and your +hit/damage. You have to pick one or the other (or divide it to some of one and some of the other). You can't be +5 on both.

Both the Amulet of Natural Armor and the Potion of Barkskin give an enhancement bonus to natural armor and therefore they don't stack, per the description of Barkskin. You didn't actually include that in your 52 AC, but you did list it as a footnote to get even more AC, but it won't stack.

Now some notes:

Your dodge bonus is only against one foe, so it isn't always 52.

Pathfinder dodge isn't only against 1 opponent...

His level 9 build was actually pretty good and his level 15 build almost soloed a horned devil...read our High level playtests...

ACTF:52/23/40 (mobility +4,combat expertise +2, giants +4,defending+5)
That line of extra modifiers are actually in addition to the 52/33/40 They aren't included in that main line...
that includes the defending...

These are the base enhancements to AC.
(10+8armor+5enh,+2/+5shield+5dex+4Armor training,+2 dodge,+5Natural, +5deflection, +1insight)

Dodge (Combat)

You have mastered a defensive stance that allows to you easily react to your opponents.

Prerequisite:Dex 13

Benefit:As a swift action, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC until your next turn. If you have 10 or more ranks in Acrobatics, the dodge bonus increases to +2.

+33 to hit while the AC rises to 57, is a fair trade...That means I can still hit these creatures..and they still have a chance to miss me...unlike that 2 handed weapon guy that they auto hit...

Pit Fiend, AC40 +30 ATK (hits on a 20)
Wyrm Red Dragon AC42 +48 ATK (hits on 9+)

I could full attack with 4 axe/2 shield normally, so I could drop 1 attack from each of those...(but for the playtest, which is what I was testing it for, I didn't set-up my statblock that way.)

His AC is 52...57 with defending...improved vital strike of a two-handed sword (6d6 = 6-36) isn't that much better than Improved vital strike for a dwarven axe (3d10 = 3-30)...

This character was optimized with purchases for a high-level playtest...he's a monster...nuff-said...

=D

Sovereign Court

DM_Blake wrote:


IMO, there are too many Fighter-only feats. There were too many in 3.x. We should take all these feats and strike them from the feat list and turn them into class abilities, something like this:

Absolutely. I don't like fighter-only feats.

1 to 50 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Viable Sword and board fighter? All Messageboards