Imagine an arena.
A fighter with this feat is fighting an orc. They both have enough class levels that they both get multiple attacks each round.
We begin after they are already in reach of each other.
So, it's a draw. Neither combatant can hit each other.
I was wrong. Normally I don't quote myself, but I just realized how it would go.
Same guys, same arena.
DM Orc's turn.
Orc: I full-attack.
Fighter: I Step Away as an immediate action on the orc's turn.
Orc: Crud, now I can't reach him, so I 5' move and full-attack him.
Fighter Crud! I already used my one immediate action, so I can't Step Away a second time on the orc's turn, so I guess I get clobbered.
DM: OK, fighter's turn.
Fighter: Well, at least I can reach the orc, so I clobber him back. Then I stand here since I can't move anyway.
DM: OK, back to Orc's turn.
Orc: I full attack since he's right there in reach.
Fighter: I Step Away as an immediate action on the orc's turn.
Orc: OK, I 5'-move and full-attack.
Fighter: Dangit! He clobbers me again. Why did I take this feat? I should have taken Toughness - that guy's greataxe really stings!
So, really, this feat does nothing. Every round the two combatants just full-attack each other.
Sure, sure, in a big battle with multiple targets, other combatants maybe be moving around, shooting arrows, casting spells, and this feat may be more practical.
But the enemy who tries to full-attack could alsays simply delay his attack until someone else walks into range, or he could just 5'-move as I demonstrated above (in this post).
|
But the enemy who tries to full-attack could alsays simply delay his attack until someone else walks into range, or he could just 5'-move as I demonstrated above (in this post).
This is what I was going to point out: You can 5' step between iterative attacks during a full attack...so what does the feat do?
If the orc initially uses a 5' step to get into range, you get this sequence.
Ork: 5' step and full attack
Human: Immediate 5' step out of range.
Ork: Snarl.
Human: I can't move, so I'll ready an attack.
Ork: 5' step and full attack
Human: I swing once for my ready, then I'll take an immediate action to 5' step out of range.
Ork: Ouch. That hurt. I snarl again.
Human: I can't move, so I'll ready an attack.
Ork: I'll run around the fighter and hit the mage. I bet he doesn't have that annoying feat.
In that case, the feat is actually useful. You've wasted two enemy actions, and got in one attack. It did cost you two of your actions. And you convinced the ork to go beat up on someone less annoying.
It sounds neat, but in practice, I expect it's very situational. It might actually be more useful for spellcasters.
Enemy stands next to spell caster.
Caster takes a 5' step and casts.
Enemy takes 5' step and starts a full attack.
Caster takes an immediate 5' step to avoid attack.
Enemy looks unhappy and does nothing to finish his turn.
Caster casts a spell.
Repeat.
For a fighter, the only effective use I can actually see is trying to block a restricted passage to protect the back-rank casters while the kill the enemy you can't effectively attack. You're slowly giving ground, but your also not taking damage as long as your in the restricted area. OTOH, you could also do that without a feat. Just ready an action to 5' step if you're attacked.
The 33 is a Dwarf in full stone plate and shield of bashing, high dex bonus, amulet you get the picture.
If we’re going to help you, we need to see how you calculated these numbers since that seems to be the problem.
The dwarf’s AC should be 25 from my calculations.
10 + 9 (stone plate) + 2 (shield) + 2 (dex, max, armor training) + 2 (amulet of natural armor) = 25
Notes:
1) As noted already, Stone armor should give +9 armor and a +0 dex bonus. Armor training allows a +2 max dex bonus.
2) A shield with just “bashing” does not get an enhancement bonus.
3) +2 items should be on players of this level, not +3 items, so I assumed the amulet is +2.
4) Weapon (Shield) focus doesn’t add to your AC if you pick a shield
The 27 is dragon blooded Sorcerer in mithral plate, high dex, natural armor, mage armor and shield.
The sorceror's AC should be 26. 22 if he cannot use shield.
10 + 8 (Mithril full plate) + 3 (max dex) + 1 (natural armor at 8th) + 0 (mage armor) + 4 (shield) = 26
Notes:
1) 25% chance of arcane spell failure, including his draconic spells
2) a 25% arcane spell failure seems low, with or without mithril armor. Bad design on heavy armor imo, which I’ve never noted before. With the Arcane Armor Mastery feat, at 7th level it can reduce the arcane spell failure by another 20% (!) so that it’s only 5%. Very uber munchkin imo. This seems so good, I'd say it's a "must have" for all wizards and sorcerors, it's just too good imo.
IF this were my campaign, I’d be raising the arcane spell failure rates on all heavy armor. I also don't feel sorcs and wizards wearing full plate is in the "spirit of the game", maybe a chain shirt if they are hybrid, but not full plate. But that's just my opinion.
3) Unless the sorc takes a level in fighter, must use 3 feats to wear heavy armor. Or 2 feats to wear mithril heavy armor in this case, I suppose (although it's still technically heavy armor, it would be DMs discretion).
4) Shield spell should not affect anyone behind you, in other words flanking the sorc.
5) Note that the Arcane Armor and Dodge feats need a swift action every round to activate. You can't have both.
Notes to other players giving advice here. The game isn’t about DM vs players. Just because my players have good AC doesn’t mean I drown them in some water trap, geez. Some of you talk very DM vs player, and that kind of worries me!
Also, in doing these calculations I assumed a really high dex for both characters. It means they are weak in other areas of course.
Anyway, I think it’s important to note here that heavy armor and arcane spell failure are completely broken in the Pathfinder beta imo. Between mithril armor and the arcane armor feats, 5% for full plate is ridiculous imo.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
2) A shield with just “bashing” does not get an enhancement bonus.
But a shield cannot have bashing without being at least +1 enhancement, so it should give a +3 shield bonus
4) Weapon (Shield) focus doesn’t add to your AC if you pick a shield
He could have the Shield Focus feat from Beta (it was posted on the boards in a thread from Jason B on additional feats, not the actual Beta book.
2) a 25% arcane spell failure seems low, with or without mithril armor. Bad design on heavy armor imo, which I’ve never noted before. With the Arcane Armor Mastery feat, at 7th level it can reduce the arcane spell failure by another 20% (!) so that it’s only 5%. Very uber munchkin imo. This seems so good, I'd say it's a "must have" for all wizards and sorcerors, it's just too good imo.
IF this were my campaign, I’d be raising the arcane spell failure rates on all heavy armor. I also don't feel sorcs and wizards wearing full plate is in the "spirit of the game", maybe a chain shirt if they are hybrid, but not full plate. But that's just my opinion.
It's a 5 feat investment (Jason has indicated on one of the Beta threads that he was leaning towards requiring proficiency in the base armor type for mithril, even though it counts for a lighter category for movement), not to mention the cost of the mithril full plate - I don't think it's too overpowered - think of what he's giving up instead, greater spell focus in 2 schools and spell penetration for example.
4) Shield spell should not affect anyone behind you, in other words flanking the sorc.
That's a house rule of yours. A shield bonus simply gives you a bonus to AC.
5) Note that the Arcane Armor and Dodge feats need a swift action every round to activate. You can't have both.
Not to mention not being able to cast quickened spells. Also, you can have both, you just can't activate them both in the same round.
4) Shield spell should not affect anyone behind you, in other words flanking the sorc.That's a house rule of yours. A shield bonus simply gives you a bonus to AC.
I'll agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'm afraid you are wrong on this.
Shield
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S
Effect
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min./level (D)
Description
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
Note the bold italicized text above. The spell specifically says it creates a shield of force in front of you, not behind you. It is a floating shield in front of you, just like a shield on your arm. If you are flanked, you get no benefit from it. If it did, it would say something like 'a shield that floats around you in response to attacks' not 'a floating shield in front of you'.
4) Shield spell should not affect anyone behind you, in other words flanking the sorc.That's a house rule of yours. A shield bonus simply gives you a bonus to AC.
I'll agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I'm afraid you are wrong on this.
Shield
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S
Effect
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min./level (D)
Description
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
Note the bold italicized text above. The spell specifically says it creates a shield of force in front of you, not behind you. It is a floating shield in front of you, just like a shield on your arm. If you are flanked, you get no benefit from it. If it did, it would say something like 'a shield that floats around you in response to attacks' not 'a floating shield in front of you'.
Actually, I'm afraid you're wrong on this.
The standard d20 combat rules intentionally ignore the direction a creature faces. The rules assume that creatures are constantly moving and shifting within their spaces, looking in all directions during a fight. In this variant, facing—the direction your head and body are pointing—makes a big difference in how you move and fight.
I cannot find anything contradicting that in Pathfinder.
Nor can I find any rules at all regarding how shield bonuses to AC only affect attacks from certain directions.
Obviously, a man with a basic wooden shield strapped to his left arm cannot use that shield bonus to defend against attacks that strike him in the right shoulder.
But he can turn so that his wooden shield defends that direction and applies to his AC.
Which is what the d20 rules allow for.
The Shield spell creates a magical barrier that works like a shield. It provides a normal shield bonus to AC (just like a wooden shield), and it is mobile (just like a wooden shield).
Here, I've bolded and italicized the relevent parts:
Shield
School abjuration [force]; Level sorcerer/wizard 1
Casting
casting Time 1 standard action
components V, S
Effect
range personal
Target you
duration 1 min./level (D)
Description
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
And in case that is insufficently conclusive, here is the SRD version of shield bonus (once again, I have bolded and italicized the pertinent info):
A shield bonus improves Armor Class and is granted by a shield or by a spell or magic effect that mimics a shield. Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses. A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC. A shield bonus granted by a spell or magic item typically takes the form of an invisible, tangible field of force that protects the recipient. A shield bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.
Note that the d20 SRD makes no distinction between wearing a shield or using a "spell or magic effect that mimics a shield" - they both grant a normal shield bonus, regardless of facing, regardless of from which direction you get attacked.
Interestingly enough, MDT stated this exact fact in his post that I've quoted here: "It is a floating shield in front of you, just like a shield on your arm."
Which makes me wonder if MDT requires fighters, paladins, etc., whoever is wearing a shield, to not count their shield AC against attacks from the rear or opposite side?
JoelF847 got it exactly right when he quoted Jason S and called it a houserule.
Now, houseruling is, as always, fine - just make sure you know it's a houserule and don't make the mistake of arguing core game mechanics based on your houserule.
Side Note: The Unearthed Arcana has some really good variant rules to introduce Combat Facing into the game.
That seems a touch overly literal in interpretation. Perhaps thinking of it as being created in front of you, and then going wherever needed would help. If the Shield only applied to attacks from a single direction, we would have facing rules so you would know where a characters "front" was at all times (as in Battletech etc). And frankly the spell would be a whole lot more specific about what attacks it did and did not help with.
I also don't recall reading anything in recent editions about flankers getting their +2 as well as nullifying your shield. (Was it first or second ed that had a limit about how many foes you could apply your shield bonus to?)
An unconditional bonus is an unconditional bonus, imho.
Ok, so here's the problem with the shield as described by the spell, or by physical reality in the case of a shield strapped on your arm, being a bonus without regards to positioning.
Goblin A & Goblin B flank PC 1.
Goblin A Initiative : 15
Goblin B Initiative : 15
PC 1 Initiative : 20
PC 1 attacks Goblin A, misses.
Goblin A & Goblin B both attack on the same initiative phase.
The shield (physical or magical) is in front of the PC. Yes, he can twist to get it in front of one of the goblins, but, not both. It's physically impossible.
Add in Goblin C, D, E, and F, so he's completely physically surrounded, and the issue breaks down even further. It would be ludicrous to say that a single person could move a shield (magical or physical) so as to have it protect him from 6 simultaneous attacks.
Now, if Goblin A & B attack on different initiative phases (say 14 and 15) then yes, the PC can twist to get the shield in place against both attacks. But, any flanking attacks on the same phase should only get the shield bonus to one direction (say, all attacks coming in on one side, either facing the shield, or to one side either way of the shield).
The rules cannot handle every possible situation, and it is the GM's job to adjudicate the rules fairly to all involved. Note, the PCs can also remove the shield bonus from someone by delaying and attacking on the same initiative phase (and they do so in my game). It's only good sense. You give up beating the target's initiative for a tactical advantage. If you're unlucky, he sunders your weapon and you fail to get that tactical advantage, or he trips you, or he crits and kills you. It's a valid trade off (in the example above with the goblins and the PC, if the PC had hit the goblin, it was likely the goblin would be dead, and his partner wouldn't have gotten any tactical benefit from going on the same initiative).
Ok, so here's the problem with the shield as described by the spell, or by physical reality in the case of a shield strapped on your arm, being a bonus without regards to positioning.
Goblin A & Goblin B flank PC 1.
Goblin A Initiative : 15
Goblin B Initiative : 15
PC 1 Initiative : 20PC 1 attacks Goblin A, misses.
Goblin A & Goblin B both attack on the same initiative phase.The shield (physical or magical) is in front of the PC. Yes, he can twist to get it in front of one of the goblins, but, not both. It's physically impossible.
Add in Goblin C, D, E, and F, so he's completely physically surrounded, and the issue breaks down even further. It would be ludicrous to say that a single person could move a shield (magical or physical) so as to have it protect him from 6 simultaneous attacks.
Now, if Goblin A & B attack on different initiative phases (say 14 and 15) then yes, the PC can twist to get the shield in place against both attacks. But, any flanking attacks on the same phase should only get the shield bonus to one direction (say, all attacks coming in on one side, either facing the shield, or to one side either way of the shield).
The rules cannot handle every possible situation, and it is the GM's job to adjudicate the rules fairly to all involved. Note, the PCs can also remove the shield bonus from someone by delaying and attacking on the same initiative phase (and they do so in my game). It's only good sense. You give up beating the target's initiative for a tactical advantage. If you're unlucky, he sunders your weapon and you fail to get that tactical advantage, or he trips you, or he crits and kills you. It's a valid trade off (in the example above with the goblins and the PC, if the PC had hit the goblin, it was likely the goblin would be dead, and his partner wouldn't have gotten any tactical benefit from going on the same initiative).
Everything you say is true.
But only in our real world.
In the game simulation, simplified to make it easy to run, what you say is not true.
Besides, the likelihood that goblin A and goblin B both attack on the same initiative is only 1 battle in 20. Unless they specifically coordinate to do that (I would say some kind of feat would be the minimum requirement to rob a combatant of his defenses).
Further besides, if we want to get ultra realistic, when two combatants flank their foe from exactly opposite sides, one of those two combatants can, almost always, outright kill that foe if they have any idea what they're doing, especially if they are coordinating their attacks. It is physically and mentally impossible for the defender to remain sandwiched between two enemies and defend himself against both attacks.
So, in real-life combat training, what do they tell us to do when facing this situation?
1. Charge one enemy and take him out fast to even the odds. In the real world, this means entering that enemy's 5' square (against d20 RAW) and delivering a quick lethal (or incapacitating) attack (difficult in d20 RAW's HP system) that might include an overrun (ending up behind that foe) then turning and facing the one remaining foe (that a lot of stuff for one d20 round).
2. Move laterally so that you are not between the two enemies, then turn and face them so they are both in front of you, one to your right and one to your left (but both in front) so you can physically and mentally track their attacks and defend against both.
No real world training allows us to just stand there and defend, poorly or otherwise, against two opposite foes.
But d20 and Pathfinder both allow us to do this, primarily because the combat system is enormously simplified.
But that's all beside the point.
Again, this is all fine for houserules, but none of what you've written here reflects the game rules as written.
The original comment was someone saying (incorrectly ) that the Shield spell only works from the front, then someone else replying (correctly) that the first comment was wrong according to RAW, then you attempting to correct (incorrectly) the second person.
I think I adequately demonstrated the RAW in my previous post. Both physical shields (wood, steel, etc.) and magical shields (the Shield spell) provide a shield bonus that protects against all attacks from all directions. Per RAW.
So feel free to houserule all you want. You're entitled to it by Rule Zero.
But it seems ill-advised to present your houserules, even though they are perfectly logical, as if they were RAW.
But it seems ill-advised to present your houserules, even though they are perfectly logical, as if they were RAW.
Ok,
I'll give you that I ended up mixing in a house rule with a discussion on RAW spell.I still maintain that the spell specifically says it has a facing. That's a limiter on the spell. If it wasn't, it would say 'Creates a shield around you'. In which case, it would work like bracers of armor (which specifically state they put up a force field around you). Shield of Law and Shield of Faith both specifically state they create a field 'around' the target. If the intention of the spell was that it protects you completely, it wouldn't explicitly say 'in front of you'.
Considering the change from the 3.0 (where it did have a facing and actually worked as a shield with AC and cover) to 3.5 (where it just gives AC) that the designer's intent was quite clear that it adds a +4 Shield bonus to your AC with no facing consideration. You're reading too much into the fluff.But it seems ill-advised to present your houserules, even though they are perfectly logical, as if they were RAW.Ok,
I'll give you that I ended up mixing in a house rule with a discussion on RAW spell.I still maintain that the spell specifically says it has a facing. That's a limiter on the spell. If it wasn't, it would say 'Creates a shield around you'. In which case, it would work like bracers of armor (which specifically state they put up a force field around you). Shield of Law and Shield of Faith both specifically state they create a field 'around' the target. If the intention of the spell was that it protects you completely, it wouldn't explicitly say 'in front of you'.
I'll second this.
Don't read too much into the fluff.
I imagine the person who wrote that spell in the book was simply trying to convey that the shield is not strapped to your arm. The writer gave the spell some fluff that it hovers in front of you in general, instead of strapping to your arm.
So you can still wield your staff, and cast spells, without arcane failure or worrying about a free left hand.
But the writer also said it's mobile, which clearly implies that it moves to interpose against attacks from any direction you choose to face (and in a game system without "facing", that means all attacks).
So, "in front of you" means whichever direction you want it to, because during a melee round you turn your body to establish a new "front" whenever you want to, even when it's not your turn, so you can turn to "face" every attacker on their turn, and the mobile Shield spell moves to remain "in front of you" as you do this, granting its bonus against every attacker.
Just like a normal shield that straps to your arm.
That's all the fluff means.
I believe that if the writer had meant anything else, the additional details would be written into the spell.