|
The reason for the opponent to attack you would, presumably, be the amount of damage you can deal. For me, a shield build should be all about defense - which is not merely to say "AC," however. The DR feats we've seen already are another option; I'd also like to see a shield-based feat that essentially gives you evasion. (Any fantasy system that doesn't let you hide behind your shield when the dragon breathes flame on you is doing it wrong.)
I think we are leaving it murky, it only as long as everyone at the table agrees, then it doesn't matter what we say on the 'net.
The shield slam is a feat I applaud personally. I think that is a great example of a good shield feat. Others along that lines would be great. Maybe something that stuns on a shield bash would be nice too.
The shield, historically, was never just a defensive tool, mainly because defense is a losers position (you can't defeat your opponent if you don't attack).
Depends on the size of the shield shisumo... wouldn't want to see someone hiding behind a buckler ;) however I think the complete cover you can get from a tower shield should work on more than just mundane ranged attacks.
|
From this thread I liked these ideas.
From Dungeonscape (I don't have it but like this feat/ability) Dungeon Crasher and combined with Shield Slam allows you to bullrush opponents and knock them prone and do damage as well.
The build listed there is:
1 Dodge
1B Mobility
2 Dungeon Crasher part 1
3 Improved Shield Bash
4 Spring Attack
5 Two Weapon Fighting
6 Dungeon Crasher part 2
7 Shield Slam
Shield Slam:
"Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance."
Dungeon Crasher:
"If you force an opponent to move into a wall or other solid object, he stops as normal. However, your momentum crushes him against it, dealing an amount of bludgeoning damage..."
This sounds exactly like a tactic useful for Sword and Board Fighters. There is enough variety in the feats that the fighter is not a one trick pony. Higher levels can be used to build upon another tactic even.
|
|
Okay need some help building out this build guys.
The idea is the Fighter can use his shield for a shield slam, bull rush on attacks of opportunity. This essentially becomes a movement denial build I know.
1) The ideal build for me would be some Combat Reflexes to increase AoOs.
2) Someone once mentioned a feat that allowed you to use any square you threatened as a a square FROM which you could gain an AoO, essentially stepping forward or sideways to get the extra attack, and returning your base square. So if true what is the feat and where?
3) Shield Slam to get the Bull Rush attack. Or some other feat that essentially will let you hit the opponent with your shield and stop them, rather than moving them. That is really what I want.
This kind of build lets a fighter stop movement in several squares all around him. From a control the battlefield point of view this is exactly what I want.
Any ideas? Has it already been listed above and I missed it? Elsewhere- throw me a link?
|
Regarding the OP and Sword and Board Fighting...
I did create a character that uses sword and shield and used the shield tree with TWF. Yes I loved the concept and it makes an amazing antagonist. Especially adding in some movement feats such as Spring Attack.
However, as someone pointed out, it really is a TWF build rather than a shield build.
So that got me to wondering just what exactly would you consider the role of a sword and board fighter? See, I figure if you take feats to increase your AC, or even have an active use with shield for parrying or blocking incoming missiles, you still need to present a reason for an opponent to attack you.
Having a really high AC could simply mean the enemy ignores you and focuses on the squishies (mages). So either you must also have a high damage output, or have abilities that control the battlefield. Controlling the battlefield seems to me, to almost require movement denial.
Someone said that Paizo had said they were very opposed to movement denial options in the game. So what does that leave us? It seems like the only viable option then is to have high damage output. Unless a third party releases options for movement denial...
I think the Step Up and Disruptive feats are along your movement denial ideas... there's also another one that combines with Combat Reflexes and stops a foe in its tracks I believe...
You're arguing on the latter half of that sentence while completely ignoring the first half. The enhancement bonus is to the shield's shield bonus. That's really all there is to this. Nothing in the rules specifies directly or otherwise that they are "mutually exclusive." They aren't additive in the slightest - one directly modifies the other. Everything in the game works this way.
If you would have actually read my previous posts where I mentioned it or even read the description of shields, you would have seen this particular line TWICE in the PFRPG (page 110 and page 111 if you would like to look it up, once in the light and once in the heavy shield description)...
"An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
Would you like to reconsider your opinion on the subject now? The rules say they are mutually exclusive (if only for the purposes of a shield bash). Does this make it less "murky" for some of you?
Since the rules don't say that, it's an entirely moot point. What the rules say is that A + B = B' and you use B' for everything that references B.
Incorrect.
Go back and look at my Combat Reflexes example again, and explain to me how that works in your system.
Basically irrelevant to current discussion of the shield bash feat...
I'd also like to see a shield-based feat that essentially gives you evasion. (Any fantasy system that doesn't let you hide behind your shield when the dragon breathes flame on you is doing it wrong.)
If you read the rules entries you get:
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target, he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Improved Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
That being said, it is a judgment call on the DM's side if it can happen, but there isn't a need for any extra rules for it to happen. Apparently they have been doing it right since 3.5 (if not 3.0, I don't have that PHB handy at this location).
|
|
Spoilered so as to reduce threadjack.
Note that this is my last post on this subject regardless.
If you would have actually read my previous posts where I mentioned it or even read the description of shields, you would have seen this particular line TWICE in the PFRPG (page 110 and page 111 if you would like to look it up, once in the light and once in the heavy shield description)...
"An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
Would you like to reconsider your opinion on the subject now? The rules say they are mutually exclusive (if only for the purposes of a shield bash). Does this make it less "murky" for some of you?
My understanding was that the topic of discussion was the Shield Mastery feat, which says, "Add your shield's shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were an enhancement bonus." Anything that refers to the "shield bonus" of your shield without the word "base" is referring to the shield's entire shield bonus, including any enhancement bonuses to the shield's AC.
Nothing that I said has anything to do with general shield bashes. Nor, for that matter, does pointing out that an enhancement bonus to the shield not improve attacks with it change the truth of what I did say, which is that you always include enhancement bonuses when any rule asks you to check the value of a given statistic, unless the "base" stastistic is specified. Shield bashes don't refer to the shield's shield bonus, so the line is completely irrelevant here; I'm honestly not sure why you're bringing it up.
Edit: Actually, no, wait. I just realized why you're bringing it up, which gives me the satisfaction of being absolutely certain you're wrong. You're claiming that the general rule on shield bashes - that a shield's enhancement bonus doesn't apply to them - somehow prevents Shield Mastery from adding the shield's enhancement bonus. Fact is, that's not the case, and for two separate reasons. First, the d20 is an exception-based system - a general rule only applies as long as there is no specific exception for it, and Shield Mastery is pretty clearly an exception. It would override the general rule regardless.
More importantly, however, Shield Mastery doesn't interact with that rule at all - because you're not adding the shield enhancement bonus to the attack and damage rolls. You're adding its shield bonus. The shield bonus, however, is modified by an enhancement bonus - but that is irrelevant to the rule or the feat. A + B = B', and it's B' that is added to C, not A at all.
Since the rules don't say that, it's an entirely moot point. What the rules say is that A + B = B' and you use B' for everything that references B.Incorrect.
Well... argued? Um, 'kay. You might want to look into developing an actual counterargument here.
Go back and look at my Combat Reflexes example again, and explain to me how that works in your system.Basically irrelevant to current discussion of the shield bash feat...
There isn't a shield bash feat - it's a basic combat maneuver. And the Shield Mastery feat works as I said above. The comparison I'm trying to make here is that, whenever the rules say "do something with value X," the value of X always includes all applicable modifiers at the time the rule is triggered; that means you calculate your Combat Reflexes attacks including your enhancement bonus to Dexterity, and it means that when you are told to add your shield bonus to your attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash, you add you enhancement bonus to the shield as well.
I'd also like to see a shield-based feat that essentially gives you evasion. (Any fantasy system that doesn't let you hide behind your shield when the dragon breathes flame on you is doing it wrong.)If you read the rules entries you get:
That being said, it is a judgment call on the DM's side if it can happen, but there isn't a need for any extra rules for it to happen. Apparently they have been doing it right since 3.5 (if not 3.0, I don't have that PHB handy at this location).
Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding.Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target, he is considered to have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target that has total cover.
Improved Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. In such situations, the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Stealth checks.
First, that's only with tower shields, and only when you're basically frozen in a defensive position - not exactly the heroic frame I'm looking for. More importantly, though, it's improved cover that grants improved evasion, not total cover, and though it might make sense, nothing in the rules suggests that the two overlap. Tower shields, by RAW, don't do anything to help keep the nasty dragon's breath away.
- SIGH - I see that this topic has started to be another 'Red vs. Blue' thing...
I like to think of it as a "I actually read the rules" versus "I skimmed them and here is my opinion because I can post it" thing, but you know...
Are we speaking of Rules As Intended? Perhaps. Are we asking for a viable solution for a feat that (sadly, perhaps a bit too late) it showed some issues? Absolutely.
Unfortunately interpretation of actual RAW being such as it is (evidenced by this thread), RAI is one of those things I really try not to get too involved in unless it is with people who actually matter (game designers or the DM of our group) or the rare occasion that the people who are posting might all be able to handle an actual intellectual debate (and by doing so are able to admit they could be wrong on some level, myself included) without it devolving into to a flame war. As such, RAI is the realm of FAQs and Errata from the designers themselves, given that last is almost impossible in an open internet forum. I'll state my opinion on the subject once or twice regarding RAI, but it isn't worth the headache to take it further than that. RAW ends up being what we play the game by though.
I agree the feat tree is probably intended to result in a full attack routine with main hand and a single additional off hand attack all without penalty, but that isn't what the rules actually say. It just means they need to be rewritten to actually do what was intended. But like you say, it might be too late to make it into the final book. However they can always release errata afterwards.
|
|
Actually, no, I'm wrong - I think I must have been overgeneralizing from the spellcasting exception. Tower shields will keep you safe from dragon's breath if you use them for total cover. Unfortunately, they suck so badly I still don't think they count: -2 to all attacks, or a complete inability to attack at all, isn't worth total cover. I'd much rather a feat that let you get evasion from a heavy shield (maybe even adding the shield's shield bonus to the Ref save!) against lines or burst effects...
My understanding was that the topic of discussion was the Shield Mastery feat, which says, "Add your shield's shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were an enhancement bonus." Anything that refers to the "shield bonus" of your shield without the word "base" is referring to the shield's entire shield bonus, including any enhancement bonuses to the shield's AC.
....Okay, seriously now...?
"An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it..."
Nothing in the rules changes that, the Shield Master feat doesn't change that. A +X heavy shield never takes the "+X" into consideration when making a shield bash. It says so right in the description of shields. As the "enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash" the only thing you are left with is the "base" shield bonus without enhancement bonus.
Nothing that I said has anything to do with general shield bashes. Nor, for that matter, does pointing out that an enhancement bonus to the shield not improve attacks with it change the truth of what I did say, which is that you always include enhancement bonuses when any rule asks you to check the value of a given statistic, unless the "base" stastistic is specified. Shield bashes don't refer to the shield's shield bonus, so the line is completely irrelevant here; I'm honestly not sure why you're bringing it up.
Maybe because it is actually pertinent to the discussion? As shield bashes don't ever get improved by the enhancement bonus of a shield it doesn't matter if the enhancement bonus is +0 or +5 (or +10 for that matter), the only modifier is the +1 (light shield) or +2 (heavy shield) that you get from the table under "shield bonus) as you have to ignore the enhancement bonus, by the rules.
Well... argued? Um, 'kay. You might want to look into developing an actual counterargument here.
The original point still stands. I'll repeat it for you with an explanation.
A = shield bonusB = magical shield enhancement bonus
C = effective AC from shield
When making a shield bash with the feat Shield Master you can add your shield bonus (A) to the attack roll (per the feat) but do not add the enhancement bonus (B) (per the description of the shield you are using to make the shield bash attack). Even if you did take it into account Enhancement bonuses don't stack and we ignore the fact that the shield bonus and magic shield enhancement bonus are indeed 2 seperate values, the rules say you do not take the enhancement bonuses into account for any shield bash attempt. Your counterarguement shows a fundamental lack of comprehension on these particular rules that didn't merit any further rebuttal on my part. In tennis that would be called a "fault."
Shield bash attempt gets +A to the roll as an enhancement bonus.
Your AC gets increased by your shield by the value of C.
There isn't a shield bash feat - it's a basic combat maneuver. And the Shield Mastery feat works as I said above.
Okay
You got me, I should have said "Shield Master" feat. Still the shield master feat does not work the way you are saying. You are ignoring the rule where "An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it..." Feel free to ignore it, but it does exist and it states that whatever enhancement you have to your shield to increase its AC does not get added to shield bash attack rolls.
The comparison I'm trying to make here is that, whenever the rules say "do something with value X," the value of X always includes all applicable modifiers at the time the rule is triggered; that means you calculate your Combat Reflexes attacks including your enhancement bonus to Dexterity, and it means that when you are told to add your shield bonus to your attack and damage rolls when making a shield bash, you add you enhancement bonus to the shield as well.
Again, your Dex/combat reflexes comparison has no bearing on the current discussion. In that case there is no pre-existing rule that denies the use of the bonus, you can't use that example for that reason. Apples and oranges, they are both round and roughly the same size, that's about it.
The ground rule is enhancement bonuses to shields do not get factored in when making a shield bash. Period. Another way to say it is, the magic enhancement to a shield that helps increase the AC does not help when making attacks, it even makes sense - my god. It goes a step further to say if you want to do so you can enchant it like a weapon to get bonuses when making attacks.
None of the shield feats up to and including Shield Master "break" the rule. They don't say you get to ignore the rule, they say you can look at the table, go down to where you see your shield listed and add the number under Armor/Shield Bonus to your attack roll as an enhancement bonus. If it were to say something to the tune of "Special: This is an exception to the rule that you do not add enhancement bonuses to shield bash attempts." Like they put in all other feats that break the rules you might have a leg to stand on. It doesn't, you are left with being able to add the unmodified shield bonus to shield bash attempts, because you are prohibited from adding the existing(if any) enhancement bonus. That unmodified number on the table is the only other possible option with the enhancement bonus being taken out of the equation.
Edit: Actually, no, wait. I just realized why you're bringing it up, which gives me the satisfaction of being absolutely certain you're wrong. You're claiming that the general rule on shield bashes - that a shield's enhancement bonus doesn't apply to them - somehow prevents Shield Mastery from adding the shield's enhancement bonus. Fact is, that's not the case, and for two separate reasons. First, the d20 is an exception-based system - a general rule only applies as long as there is no specific exception for it, and Shield Mastery is pretty clearly an exception. It would override the general rule regardless.More importantly, however, Shield Mastery doesn't interact with that rule at all - because you're not adding the shield enhancement bonus to the attack and damage rolls. You're adding its shield bonus. The shield bonus, however, is modified by an enhancement bonus - but that is irrelevant to the rule or the feat. A + B = B', and it's B' that is added to C, not A at all.
Read above, any feat that makes an exception to the rule in PFRPG has the Normal and Special sections, Shield Master does not. So it pretty clearly does not override the rule. The only way to get an enhancement bonus to add to your shield bash attacks is to take and enchant the shield as a weapon. Shield master allows for an exception to this rule, it is a feat that gives you a minor (1 or 2) bonus enhancement to the attack roll. You are obviously reading more into things than exist and reaching to prove your point. You want it to work that way so this is understandable, but unfortunately I have to burst your bubble and deny you the satisfaction of being absolutely certain I'm wrong. Feel free to ask Paizo for a clarification.
Also look at the variables I posted and then your equation... You're saying your effective bonus is added to the total of the shield and enhancement bonus...
I think the Step Up and Disruptive feats are along your movement denial ideas... there's also another one that combines with Combat Reflexes and stops a foe in its tracks I believe...Regarding the OP and Sword and Board Fighting...
I did create a character that uses sword and shield and used the shield tree with TWF. Yes I loved the concept and it makes an amazing antagonist. Especially adding in some movement feats such as Spring Attack.
However, as someone pointed out, it really is a TWF build rather than a shield build.
So that got me to wondering just what exactly would you consider the role of a sword and board fighter? See, I figure if you take feats to increase your AC, or even have an active use with shield for parrying or blocking incoming missiles, you still need to present a reason for an opponent to attack you.
Having a really high AC could simply mean the enemy ignores you and focuses on the squishies (mages). So either you must also have a high damage output, or have abilities that control the battlefield. Controlling the battlefield seems to me, to almost require movement denial.
Someone said that Paizo had said they were very opposed to movement denial options in the game. So what does that leave us? It seems like the only viable option then is to have high damage output. Unless a third party releases options for movement denial...
Check out the SRD sites and look for Stand Still, probably the one you are referring to. Also with the changes to skills in PFRPG Cloak Dance (again SRD) becomes a reality for many more classes. When dealing with an opponent who has a high chance to hit, non magical concealment becomes an attractive option. As for the fighter variant, that thing was fairly easily abused if I recall, if Paizo was staying with the Bull Rush being a standard action it would have been fine, but staying with the current rule set leaves it open to "broken-ness" still. If I recall correctly the broken part actually hinged on getting free bull rushes somehow too, something out of the Race books. PFRPG actually makes it easier to break now that I think about it. Oh well, you win some you lose some.
The combo you are thinking of is large creatures with Knockback.Knockback allows free bullrushes with every attack including AoOs. On top of that it allows you to add the bonus damage from your power attack (so double for two-handed weapon weilders, the common one being the spiked chain for the reach) onto the bullrush attempt. So the bullrush is going to work 95% of the time essentially.
That is obviously broken all to heck. I honestly don't think the combination with Shield Slam is broken. It's powerful, but I honestly think it is still within the realm of "normal" play.
Size is easy to get, potions buffs and/or from party spell casters. As for it being in the realm for normal play it depends on if shield bashes are a one off every round. If they follow the typical 2WF tree and you get multiples, I'd argue that. As it stands you are shield bashing then dealing damage and doing the bull rush (other options for PC's bull rushing don't deal damage), with the variant you are doing damage, bull rushing and then doing even more damage...
What it does mean is a guy with a shield is better at smashing people into things than a non-shield guy. After all he has that nice big pushing surface strapped to him. Making a sucessful bullrush is still a crap shoot, because let's face it manuvers are hard to pull off in Pathfinder.You aren't going to have shields with reach, you use your attack roll for the bullrush so if you do get a full attack to try again, each successive attempt is at -5...
As written (literally) they have a higher to hit than your main hand so are more likely to hit. Considering the amount of flak the CMB's took I wouldn't be surprised if they drop it to 10-12 range (even though they have worked fine in our party's experience at 15) which makes them much more reliable.
Two-handed weapon guys have the overhand chop tree (3 feats) for some impressive damage, this gives shield guys an essenially 5 feat tree that can give them some impressive damage and a little battle field contol.I just wish you didn't need two-weapon fighting for Shield Slam. It's perfectly usable without trying to do actual two-weapon fighting. It would also open the combo to more mid-level fighters with shields.
Being written as an off hand requires it (2WF), I think they were trying to limit the shield to keep it from being abused as a main hand weapon. You kinda have the choice of 1)allowing it as both (bad), 2)making it have to be a main hand attack (worse and silly to boot) or 3)making it have to be off hand (reasonable and best from them all IMO). No other weapon can just increase the damage out put via tacking on a cheap "pointy thing" or two size increases with a +1 defensive enhancement (so half as expensive as a weapon enhancement and equal bonuses to boot).
I think it's the bashing enhancment that causes all the problems.
We are looking at this from different directions, you are looking at this with the highly debated shield master feat in mind (which can't be obtained until level 11), while I am looking at it as something to do without using the weapon in your other hand at all.
Shield master's bonuses are it's own fight/arguement. I am not getting involved in it.
CBM is what it is now. August may or may not bring any changes.
At the moment using a shield at level 7, will end out being fairly comperable to Improved Bullrush on the first attack, and if there is a second attack, it is much worse. As the levels progress (and not touching the shield master feat with a 20 foot pole), the user will likely be adding weapon mastery bonuses to close weapons, and some weapon enhancement bonuses to their shield. That will make their bullrush more potent, but again, look at what the great sword weilding lunatic is doing at the same level with the same amount of wealth, without needing to set up a bunch of conditions.
The great sword wielding maniac is limited to 1 attack, the feats for over hand chop (or further down the tree) are all limited to either the first attack or standard actions. The Sword & Board feats we are seeing here are allowing for multiple attacks and stacking the crasher variant on top would basically make it the de facto damage build (1H weapon and then appropriate shield bashes with crasher damage with 2wf) on top of having the bonuses to AC of a shield. A little more damage via shield bash is ok, giving it everything the 2H'er has plus (without the variant even), isn't (at least by my view of things). The options for a viable S&B tree are pretty limited, too much AC and PCs become near impossible to hit, too much damage and then they are better than the rest of the damage dealers out there and Paizo already said they don't like denial tactics... It isn't an easy problem to make a fix for and regardless of what they do do, they are going to take crap from someone because there is going to be a group who doesn't like what is implemented (as we sit here and look at posts complaining about S&B being 2WF for example). At least they are trying and they put a little thought into is what makes me content about the subject regardless.
There is nothing wrong with not using a weapon in hand. Two weapon fighting penalties only apply when you are using both the weapons. If you look at the shield feats in 3.5, they don't tend to require two weapon fighting (I don't know of any in 3.5 at the moment that do).
Are we talking about some house rules or your take on the rules? The feats don't say you have to use 2WF but as they only give bonuses when making the shield bash attack they don't matter, the actual item and definition of the attack states it explicitly:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table 7–5 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Shield Bashes are strictly off hand attacks by the rules, as such you cannot make main hand attacks with a shield and they always get the 1/2 STR modifier. It is odd, I agree, but it is strictly called out to always be an offhand. The only time you get an off hand attack is when you do a full attack action and are fighting with 2 or more weapons. A heavy shield is treated as 1h weapon, light shields as light weapons, they will take the appropriate off hand penalty when making the attack regardless of if you don't choose to use your "main hand" attack. A shield bash as main attack isn't a choice you get to make by the rules. As I said it seems like they were trying to control it. But yes you are correct, you don't need to have 2WF feats to shield bash, but you will not be able to hit the broad side of a castle if you attempt to use them without it.
If you do want to do two weapons fighting, your best bet is to have one of the weapons as light. If you really wanted to, you could use a large shield with say a short sword. I personally wouldn't want to do it. Given how rare effective shield slams will be, and the fact that having your opponent move away from you in the middle of a full attack would be really annoying, I'll be going for something a bit more smashy as a weapon.
With the variant for the Dungeon Crasher the whole point is get them up against something so they "bounce", getting full round attacks on main hand, then off hand attacks with shield bashes and then bouncing damage from free bull rushes adds up to A LOT of damage even with misses. If you are using the variant you aren't pushing them out of reach so your example of pushing them away doesn't make much sense. You are bull rushing them to a wall (or if large and they are smaller, into the floor, your top square down to thier square then the floor) and then making paste with them. Again my point was that the variant rules with anything that provides free bull rushes is easily abusable and broken, PFRPG gives free bull rushes. When you are keeping up, or even outdamaging the lunatic with the 2H'er and getting other benefits and you are supposed to be playing a "defensive" type, well I'm sure it would get questioned in our group.
You feel the bashing enhancement is too cheap? Did you bring it up in the playtest? If so, we'll see what happens in August.
The Bashing enchancement is unarguably cheap, for the cost of 2000 gold you get a shield that gives you AC +1 (2 or 3 points), gives you the +1 enhancement bonus to attacks and damage as a magical weapon would as well as increasing the base damage of your weapon two size catagories without giving you penalties normally incurred when you are wielding a larger weapon (which typically requires 2 hands to use even with penalties). A +1 weapon costs 2000 gold by itself.
Don't gauntlets and body armour have the option of spikes too? Have you campaigned to remove the option?
Gauntlets and body armor do have the option of spikes, but unlike a shield spike they don't upgrade to the next size (or two) and cause them to do more damage. They pretty much change bludgeoning to piercing damage as well as giving a light weapon usable in grapple. They are two completely unrelated issues with the exception of the name. Not quite sure where you were going with that question.
|
For the two shield fighter, there are a few things you can do, though in all honesty so can a TWF looking for Defense. The Defending Weapon Property stacks with anything, so you can give both shields the bonus and with the one that you don't attack with as much draw the bigger AC bonus.
In magic item compendium, there are a few new properties. One that comes to mind is called (I think) Awarness. It gives a small ac and init bump.
You can also take the Pin Shield Feat, and drop an oponents shield and your at the same time, but wait, you have another.
If you use a Light Shield, you can disarm and "Have an open Hand", thus stealing their weapon rather than dropping it.
Again, if you have a Light Shield, you can hold an item in that open hand, such as a potion of healing, rope/manicles for a grapple, or whatever.
For the two shield fighter, there are a few things you can do, though in all honesty so can a TWF looking for Defense. The Defending Weapon Property stacks with anything, so you can give both shields the bonus and with the one that you don't attack with as much draw the bigger AC bonus.
You have to attack with a defending weapon to apply the bonus to AC. Granted, you don't have to make multiple attacks, which is why the defending shield spikes on a light shield/Improved Shield Bash/Two-Weapon Fighting build is a cheesy way to boost AC (make one "throw away" attack to gain up to +5 AC for a -2 on all attacks, retaining full enhancement bonus on primary weapon and shield bonus to AC). Shield Specialization and Shield Mastery, IIRC from PHBII, are even better than Two-Weapon Fighting: increase shield bonus by +1 and shield bash with no penalty (even with a heavy shield).
Add Combat Reflexes and Shield Slam, with a Dex boosting item (and possibly bumping base Dex to 16 instead of 15), and you have a pretty good blocker (excellent if under an enlarge person or other size-boosting effect). Make AoO's with a shield bash, doing damage from the spikes and initiating a free Bull Rush. If you don't feel like investing so much in a shield with defending shield spikes (which can get expensive for both the shield and weapon enchantments), you can just go with a bashing light shield and settle for a lower maximum AC.
This build can be even more versatile if the shield has the animated enchantment and using a bastard sword or dwarven waraxe (or a one-handed weapon usable two-handed like a longsword or warhammer) as the primary weapon. This lets the character choose between ranged attacks, heavy damage, or high defense/area denial.
|
|
Actually, you don't have to attack with a Defending Weapon. That is why it can be very broken, (like creatures with multiple arms and each has a +2 Defending Dagger except the one with the primary attack). As long as you have the weapon out and are weilding it, you can allocate the bonus to AC rather than Attack and Damage, or say I do this every round.
The other side of this is that it can get very expensive for a relatively minor boost, or set of boosts. You are looking at a min of 8,300+ gp for each single +2 AC, almost enough for a +3 armor or shield, a +2 to Dex, or whatever else.
Actually, you don't have to attack with a Defending Weapon. That is why it can be very broken, (like creatures with multiple arms and each has a +2 Defending Dagger except the one with the primary attack). As long as you have the weapon out and are weilding it, you can allocate the bonus to AC rather than Attack and Damage, or say I do this every round.
The other side of this is that it can get very expensive for a relatively minor boost, or set of boosts. You are looking at a min of 8,300+ gp for each single +2 AC, almost enough for a +3 armor or shield, a +2 to Dex, or whatever else.
Actually, it's more expensive than you seem to think.
You're talking about a weapon with the Defending special ability. This adds an effective +1 to the price. So if you want a +2 Defending weapon, you must pay the price for a +3 weapon, which is 18,300+ GP.
8,300+ GP will only get you a +1 Defending weapon, or just +1 to your AC.