I'm curious what game experience folks have with sword and board builds.
I'm also curious what can be done to close the damage gap (a bit) with the great sword (2HW in general) builds at mid levels excluding animated shields. I accept the shield/damage trade off. I'm just curious about ways to make sword and board builds more attractive relative to 2HW builds.
I'm thinking mainly fighter builds, but it's not exclusive.
I'm also curious what can be done to close the damage gap (a bit) with the great sword (2HW in general) builds at mid levels excluding animated shields. I accept the shield/damage trade off. I'm just curious about ways to make sword and board builds more attractive relative to 2HW builds.
I must say that it should be attractive not in the way of doing damage (there's using two-handed weapons for that), but in getting the best defense.
There are several shield-based feats in Beta (or, rather, in the extra feats Jason posted), and though some of them made shield users the better two-weapon fighters (I really hope those are gone), others increased a S&B warrior's defensive options.
I think that's what sword&board should be: Best in defense. Maybe a few tactical options (doing special actions with shield bash - Heroes of Might and Magic 5, for example, there's squire units that can shield bash, which prevents enemy retaliation).
Personally, I've found sword&board to be really hard to hit - which often makes up for the damage tradeoff.
|
I've also seen sword and shield builds do very well in our games. My wife plays her warblade with a sword and shield spec while my little brother does the same thing with his ghostwalker.
As others have said, I agree they should be some of THE best defensive characters in the game except for maybe the Duelist PrC (I haven't seen anyone get even CLOSE to their AC possibilities). As of now I'm not sure that's happening though some of the new Beta feats as well as other feats that increase the shield bonus to ac when using shields. As of right now if you put +5 enhancement bonus on the large steel shield that would give you a +7 shield AC bonus. The only issue is that even a 2hander can get that by having the shield animated.
Personally, I'd love to see the animated property on shields gone so that only someone actually USING the shield can get the big bonus but that's just me.
So the style is basically going to yield a moderate damage tank at best with some TWF options if the character is so inclined. Fighters will excel at this because of their feat depth.
That's cool.
I take it that armor training for fighters (apparently) goes away in the final cut?
I have always hated the animated shield cheese.
Of course liberal use of shield (spell) items can be abused also.
I didn't see a restriction of spells with a target of personal restricted in item creation in the Beta PDF. Did this change?
I've also seen sword and shield builds do very well in our games. My wife plays her warblade with a sword and shield spec while my little brother does the same thing with his ghostwalker.
As others have said, I agree they should be some of THE best defensive characters in the game except for maybe the Duelist PrC (I haven't seen anyone get even CLOSE to their AC possibilities). As of now I'm not sure that's happening though some of the new Beta feats as well as other feats that increase the shield bonus to ac when using shields. As of right now if you put +5 enhancement bonus on the large steel shield that would give you a +7 shield AC bonus. The only issue is that even a 2hander can get that by having the shield animated.
Personally, I'd love to see the animated property on shields gone so that only someone actually USING the shield can get the big bonus but that's just me.
I take it that armor training for fighters (apparently) goes away in the final cut?
No, Armor Training is still there (see Valeros preview here, about one-third page from the top), although we actually don't know how it has been changed (Valeros has Armor Training +3 but only a +1 to his Armor Bonus; he has a speed of 30 feet in Medium Armor, however - maybe for every +1 you can choose among some bonuses).
I personally hope that Combat Expertise gives better bonuses to sword'n boarders - as it was suggested by many people during the playtest.
And yes, I too hope that Animated Shields have been killed (or heavily nerfed, at least)!
Nah, it just has more options of what bonuses you get.
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
That's an interesting thought Arne. I'll have to keep that in mind as a house rule if sword & boards still feel underpowered in the final rules.
I dunno. It's interesting, but that's a pretty huge advantage for having a shield. I'd think it would require a feat, and even then only if they would otherwise be drastically underpowered.
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
I dunno. It's interesting, but that's a pretty huge advantage for having a shield. I'd think it would require a feat, and even then only if they would otherwise be drastically underpowered.
This combo takes the cake.
I like it as a feat. Something that makes shields defensive, like they should be.
And there is no way to use it in conjuction with all the shield bashing feats, since those take a full round attack (unless your shield bash is your single standard attack, but since that doesn't provoke, you won't have any AoO against you this round anyway - unless you moved to provoke, but then you couldn't use this feat to avoid the AoO).
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
I tend to agree that this would make a cool feat tree.
It would be appealing to me to see more ways to aid and protect teammates with such a feat chain also.
I could see shields granting partial cover when doing certain actions. I think giving full cover or completely negating attacks is a bit much. Especially since the shield would only cover one flank, kite shields are only so big.
...Possibly 50% if fighting defensive.
Do you see this as a maneuver or feat?
:: Puts fingers in his ears:: "I'm not listening you don't exist we aren't doing this again!" :: Runs off ::
I'm curious what game experience folks have with sword and board builds.
The worst sword-and-board problem I've seen (read that as "about the only") was an epic level Paladin. 28ish Strength, +5 (later +6) Holy Avenger. Great Smiting x2 (triple level to damage).
Vs. epic *neutral* Inevitables with DR 10-15/chaotic. Over a long stretch of campaign. Basically DR sucked out all the bonus damage, so she did 1d8 + bard song damage. No Power Attack feat. That, uh, might have been a bit my fault (throwing a longgg stream of neutral creatures).
However, against the Paragon Pit Fiend they fought in the last game of that campaign? They banged down her door to get her into the fight.
:: Puts fingers in his ears:: "I'm not listening you don't exist we aren't doing this again!" :: Runs off ::
::Scratches head?::
Do you see this as a maneuver or feat?
A feat that would give you benefits when doing certian maneuvers. "Defensive Shield Fighting" or some such...
This feat grants partial cover against attacks of opportunity while wielding a light or heavy shield and fighting defensively.
for example.
I like the sound of that.
except:
Cover and Attacks of Opportunity: You can’t execute
an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover
relative to you.
PRPG 146
Maybe a +2 to AC Vrs AoO similar to mobility.
::Scratches head?::
We had a LONG discussion about sword-and-shield style being basically an "eat your cake and have it, too" deal, where you get a modest shield boost to AC, and also do more damage than a dedicated TWF because of those shield slam feats and magic shield properties. The style is predominantly offensive that way, though, and gives little in the way of iconic defensive "goodies" like shielding yourself against a dragon's breath weapon (impossible unless you use 3.5 splatbooks). A number of people were interested in seeing sword-and-shield fighting become more defensive and less about off-hand bashing for 2d6+20, but little came of it.
::Scratches head?::We had a LONG discussion about sword-and-shield style being basically an "eat your cake and have it, too" deal, where you get a modest shield boost to AC, and also do more damage than a dedicated TWF because of those shield slam feats and magic shield properties. The style is predominantly offensive that way, though, and gives little in the way of iconic defensive "goodies" like shielding yourself against a dragon's breath weapon (impossible unless you use 3.5 splatbooks). A number of people were interested in seeing sword-and-shield fighting become more defensive and less about off-hand bashing for 2d6+20, but little came of it.
Got it. Does anyone recall the name of the thread?
For the issue, I don't mind more things to make sword and boarding better in the defensive end. I think that would be really nice. I would like Sword and Boarding to stay viable on the offensive end too (maybe more for manuevers instead of straight damage).
All in all my response was based on all the legalise and rules lawyering that happened after mentioning of the shield mastery feat.
Got it. Does anyone recall the name of the thread?
This might be the most recent thread .
I wouldn't mind seeing alot more shield based options other than "TWF with a weapon which also grants a sheild bonus". Somthing similer to the Dutiful Guardian Feat from Drow of the Underdark (but possibly with more bonuses for sheild users).
I wouldn't mind a few minor changes, such as the Enchantment bonus to sheilds applying to both attacks and to Sheild AC, since it's just too much of a waste to pay for both.
Or in the case of small and heavy sheilds, bonuses for using certain combat manvouers, that way theres more differences to TWF with a sheild and a normal weapon.
I wouldn't mind seeing alot more shield based options other than "TWF with a weapon which also grants a sheild bonus". Somthing similer to the Dutiful Guardian Feat from Drow of the Underdark (but possibly with more bonuses for sheild users).
I wouldn't mind a few minor changes, such as the Enchantment bonus to sheilds applying to both attacks and to Sheild AC, since it's just too much of a waste to pay for both.
Or in the case of small and heavy sheilds, bonuses for using certain combat manvouers, that way theres more differences to TWF with a sheild and a normal weapon.
Isn't the first sentence contradictory to the rest of this post?
Getting both AC and +hit/damage from a shield with only its ordinary enhancement bonus would be sick and wrong.
Magical weapons cost 2x as much as magical armor (2,000 for +1 weapons compared to 1,000 for +1 armor or shield) for the reason that WotC originally clarified: weapon enhancements apply to two effects, hit and damage, while armor enhancements apply to only one effect, AC.
Given that, you are propsing shield enhancements should affect hit, damage, and AC?
At the very least, bump it up to 3,000 gp for a +1 shield and it may be doable.
But then, using a shield as a primary weapon would suddenly be the best choice for all fighters. Attacks and defense rolled into one.
Even at 3,000 GP for +1, it's way underpriced.
Maybe 4,000 for +1, 16,000 for +2, etc.
But that would defeat your purpose of making it no longer a waste to pay for both.
Now, I do like the idea of bonuses for CMB maneuvers, particularly overrun and bull rush. Not sunder, unless you can somehow sunder with the shield. And not disarm or grapple where the shield would be in the way.
Got it. Does anyone recall the name of the thread?This might be the most recent thread .
Got it.
I really must use the search function more.
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
Ahem.
If you care to make that a homebrew feat or houserule, I know a certain half-orc paladin who might well be interested in such a thing in an upcoming campaign.
Just sayin'.
I think it would be nice if shields offered a greater ability to negate AoOs. An AoO is supposed to represent dropping your guard to take a distracting action, but a shield could reasonably be used to take an action while maintaining cover.
My thought is that if you were wielding a shield (not a buckler) you could spend a move action to negate any AoOs for a provoking action. So you could take a move action through hostile foes actively using your shield to ward off the blows, drink a potion, pick up a dropped weapon, stand from prone, etc by using your shield as cover.
I think this would make sword and board a more attractive option and keep the shield defensive rather than turning it into just another off-hand weapon.
Ahem.
If you care to make that a homebrew feat or houserule, I know a certain half-orc paladin who might well be interested in such a thing in an upcoming campaign.
Just sayin'.
The notion of a feat in a chain that gives a +2 AC vrs AoO sounds pretty appealing to me.
Another one that gives a +2 or +3 on reflex saves as part of a similar or the same feat chain sounds interesting too. I see it as a modified version of cover, but it would have to be more attractive than lightning reflexes to make mechanical sense to me.
|
How I plan to give the sword and board builds their due is by having armor as pure damage reduction. Each class will have a defense bonus similar to D20 Modern. When a fighter chooses to dodge out of the way they use their defense modifier + Dex modifier + d20 roll to defend themselves. When they choose to block with their weapon they use def mod + str mod + d20 roll. A sword and board combatant would use def mod + str mod + shield bonus + d20 roll. The difficulty for them to defend themselves is the bonus for the attack their opponent is using plus 10.
I think the issue with sword and board fighters stems from shields being handled the same as armor in the rules. I also will probably bump the shield defense modifiers just a bit.
Also note that in certain situations dodging may be the only appropriate or effective defensive option. Imagine a medium fighter trying to block a boulder hurled by a giant with his sword or small shield.
Tam
How I plan to give the sword and board builds their due is by having armor as pure damage reduction. Each class will have a defense bonus similar to D20 Modern. When a fighter chooses to dodge out of the way they use their defense modifier + Dex modifier + d20 roll to defend themselves. When they choose to block with their weapon they use def mod + str mod + d20 roll. A sword and board combatant would use def mod + str mod + shield bonus + d20 roll. The difficulty for them to defend themselves is the bonus for the attack their opponent is using plus 10.
I think the issue with sword and board fighters stems from shields being handled the same as armor in the rules. I also will probably bump the shield defense modifiers just a bit.
Also note that in certain situations dodging may be the only appropriate or effective defensive option. Imagine a medium fighter trying to block a boulder hurled by a giant with his sword or small shield.
Tam
Defensive bonus always seemed... kung-fooey to me. And a defensive roll slows down gameplay drastically.
I look at the current armor rules thusly: It's 100% DR that an opponent can only negate with a successful check, ie: attack roll.
How I plan to give the sword and board builds their due is by having armor as pure damage reduction.
I have tried damage reduction instead of AC. Multiple times, actually - each time I convinced myself that it was a good idea, or that I had found a better way to make it work.
It always sucked.
Damage Reduction sounds like a neat idea, but when you get right down to the basic essence of it, mechanically, DR really is just bonus HP.
Someone with 50 HP that gets hit 10 times for 5 HP/hit will be at 0 HP. But if that guy had DR3, he would still have 30 HP left after those 10 hits - it's like having a bonus of 30 HP (in this example).
This bonus HP might be situational, since some attacks may ignore the DR.
You may have noticed that just about everyone who can wear heavy armor also has large HD, and everyone who cannot wear any armor at all has the smallest HD available (except the monk, who has compensating AC modifiers).
So basically what you're doing is giving, in essence, bonus HP to fighters, paladins, and clerics, because they apply the most DR to most of the damage they take (they'll be in full plate very soon in their careers). You're giving a little bit of bonus HP to all the other lightly armored classes (barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, rogue) because they apply some DR to most of the damage they take.
But you're punishing monks, sorcerers, and wizards who get no extra HP because they get no DR.
Monks already suck. From the munchkin POV, there is no reason to play a monk. Want to fight? Play a fighter, not a monk. Want fast movement? Play a barbarian. Want skills? Play a rogue or ranger. Monk just might be the worst class in the game, mechanically, because there is no adventuring role for a monk that cannot be performed by other classes better.
And now you give bonus HP to the other melee classes in the form of DR, but give none to the monk.
You'd better consider giving them some kind of class ability to represent mystical mind-over-body DR or something similar or you might as well just find a bottle of white-out and erase them from your book.
(sorry for that hyperbole, but I do feel that strongly about monk suckiness - I hope Paizo has some wondrous fixes coming for the monk).
Same for the mages. They have the lowest AC and fewest HP of all the classes, and you give all the other classes more HP in the form of DR. Maybe this balances them a bit, since at the highest levels, mages are arguably the most powerful classes in the game (although the change to Casting Defensively blows them off of this pedestal fairly harshly). But at the lowest levels, this might just be a death sentence for them, if you in any way increase the difficulty of encounters to compensate for the DR of the melee classes.
Just some DR thoughts for you to consider.
Each class will have a defense bonus similar to D20 Modern.
Just checking - you do know this defense exists in d20 Modern, and not in core fantasy d20 systems, because in Modern, bullets are very deadly and nobody walks around in platemail with rings of protection and amulets of natural armor, right?
When a fighter chooses to dodge out of the way they use their defense modifier + Dex modifier + d20 roll to defend themselves.
I've done this. It gets tedious.
When they choose to block with their weapon they use def mod + str mod + d20 roll.
Ditto.
A sword and board combatant would use def mod + str mod + shield bonus + d20 roll.
Ditto again.
The difficulty for them to defend themselves is the bonus for the attack their opponent is using plus 10.
I've tried all of this.
The added rolling gets tedious. It slows down the game.
Further, with three different methods of defense, it becomes a mechanical nightmare to balance all three, especially when you start applying feats, magic items, spells, moster special abilities, etc. into the mix - I was always finding that one of my players was able to get nearly invincible in some way I hadn't thought of, then I'd nerf that back to par with the other players until someone else found another hidden formula for invincibility.
It was much like a huge playtest of a game system (Pathfinder, WoW, Everquest, etc.). The players always find stuff that even the best professional developers/designers didn't think of.
Only, with just a half-dozen players, it takes forever to find it all.
Ongoing nightmare.
I can't stop you. I can only advise you.
And my advice is to stay off this slippery slope before it gives you ulcers - D&D was not meant for this stuff, and it gets way out of hand quickly.
I think the issue with sword and board fighters stems from shields being handled the same as armor in the rules. I also will probably bump the shield defense modifiers just a bit.
This is probably true, and I think it should be remedied too.
I would say a few mechanics to do some of the stuff in this thread, and other S&B threads, are in order.
They should not all be feats - that just imposes feat taxes on anyone who wants a good defense. Some of them should just become combat rules for everyone, while others are excellent candidates for feats.
And all those feats that turn S&B fighters into deadlier versions of TWF fighters need to be tossed overboard.
Shield bashing is nice, but it is neither mechanically nor realistically satisfying to see a guy with sword and shield dish out more damage each round than a guy with two swords, all the while having a much better AC too.
While I mostly agree with Blake regarding Armor as Damage Reduction (sounds sweet, but works funky), I do have to say that Monks actually do quite well under such a system (at least the ones that are reducing AC to give the DR).
Monks may not get DR, but that means their AC's don't drop, meaning they can easily get the highest ACs in the game. They also *hit* a lot more often, but the counter effect of the DR is probably at least as strong. But that still leaves them somewhat ahead of the game.
Just a thought.
|
|
Defensive bonus always seemed... kung-fooey to me. And a defensive roll slows down gameplay drastically.
I actually think the defensive roll could be right in line with the current time that combat takes as it will be replacing the opponent's offensive roll not in addition to it. If a orc warrior has a +5 to attack you then instead of me rolling d20+5 to hit you, you instead roll to defend against a 15.
You'd better consider giving them [monks] some kind of class ability to represent mystical mind-over-body DR or something similar or you might as well just find a bottle of white-out and erase them from your book.
I am definately considering a "hardened body" type balancing feature for the monk.
Just checking - you do know this defense exists in d20 Modern, and not in core fantasy d20 systems, because in Modern, bullets are very deadly and nobody walks around in platemail with rings of protection and amulets of natural armor, right?
I do know that that is the reasoning behind Defense in d20 modern. In my mind and for my game it will be more like Base Defense Bonus, and will scale in a manner similar to BAB.
Certain spells and abilities will take looking at to adjust them to reflect these houserules of course. Take the shield spell. It would add a +4 bonus to your Defense instead of AC. Mage armor would grant a bonus to AC that translates to DR.
Tam
Defensive bonus always seemed... kung-fooey to me. And a defensive roll slows down gameplay drastically.I actually think the defensive roll could be right in line with the current time that combat takes as it will be replacing the opponent's offensive roll not in addition to it. If a orc warrior has a +5 to attack you then instead of me rolling d20+5 to hit you, you instead roll to defend against a 15.
Tam
Either I didn't read your post carefully enough to realize that you were talking about replacing to hit rolls, or it wasn't clear. I dunno which it was.
The defensive roll thing seems like it would be a bit of a pain to adjudicate crits. Do you just flip the die result? Player rolls a natural 20, the enemy fumbles, and vice versa?
Maybe I'm just stubborn, but defensive rolls have always seemed annoyingly slow (for resisted ones) or like a big let down.
PLAYER: I full attack. My bonuses are +30/25/20.
*DM rolls 3d20, pauses and rolls another*
DM: You hit twice, one was a threat but it didn't confirm.
PLAYER: Wow. I feel so invested in this combat.
(or if you want to jazz it up)
DM: Two of your attacks land solidly on the minotaur, slashing a pair of gaping wounds into his chest. You think you might have cracked a rib, but your weapon stopped short of penetrating any vital organs.
PLAYER: I think I roll dice better than you...
Of course, if your players are all about having more direct control over defense than attack, I suppose it wouldn't be functionally that different. I generally like to leave success or failure of PC actions in the hands of the PCs.
Either I didn't read your post carefully enough to realize that you were talking about replacing to hit rolls, or it wasn't clear. I dunno which it was.
The defensive roll thing seems like it would be a bit of a pain to adjudicate crits. Do you just flip the die result? Player rolls a natural 20, the enemy fumbles, and vice versa?
Maybe I'm just stubborn, but defensive rolls have always seemed annoyingly slow (for resisted ones) or like a big let down.
PLAYER: I full attack. My bonuses are +30/25/20.
*DM rolls 3d20, pauses and rolls another*
DM: You hit twice, one was a threat but it didn't confirm.
PLAYER: Wow. I feel so invested in this combat.(or if you want to jazz it up)
DM: Two of your attacks land solidly on the minotaur, slashing a pair of gaping wounds into his chest. You think you might have cracked a rib, but your weapon stopped short of penetrating any vital organs.
PLAYER: I think I roll dice better than you...Of course, if your players are all about having more direct control over defense than attack, I suppose it wouldn't be functionally that different. I generally like to leave success or failure of PC actions in the hands of the PCs.
I agree with this sentiment.
Ideally, when I try to kill a monster, I want to roll the killing dice. Attacks, damage, crits, everything.
Also ideally, when a monster tries to kill me, I want to roll everything. Dogding, diving, saving, blocking, whatever. (Obviously much of this doesn't exist in core d20 mechanics).
But, a game system like that would leave nothing for the DM to roll.
DM (with his hands in his pockets): OK, the monster bites you and claws twice. Roll your defenses.
Player: (rolls some dice).
DM (hands still in pockets): OK you take 8 damage. It's your turn. Roll your attacks.
This would be wierd, and it's certainly not d20. It would be even more wierd if a PC fights a PC. Which player gets to roll all the dice and which player has to put his hands in his pocket?
So d20 (and just about every other game) says both sides get to roll some dice.
Some games make the attacker roll to hit and then the defender roll to defend. Opposed rolls. Which results in twice as much die rolling in combat.
d20 didn't go this way.
Instead, they decided against opposed rolling.
Now your idea propses much the same thing, boths sides control their own rolls and there is no opposed rolling, but you're replacing our attack rolls with our defense rolls.
As for me, if I can only do one of the two things I want to ideally do (kill stuff or defend myself) but not both, I would much rather take the active dice and roll to kill stuff.
It just feels like I'm being passive and almost giving up if all I do is defend.
Boxers can't win a boxing match by just defending. Soccer players can't win a soccer game if they never take shots on goal. Jet Li will never win a fight if all he does is dodge and block.
Defense is important. You won't win very often if you're constantly getting pounded into oblivion (although maybe you'll win if you pound the enemy into oblivion faster than he pounds you).
But as important as defense is, it's always always always offense that wins. A boxer has to punch his opponent to win. A soccer team must put at least one ball in the goal to win. Jet Li has to hit his foes at least once to win.
Offense and defense are both necessary, but offense is just so much more necessary.
And more satisfying.
That's my take on it.
Your houserule sounds like it might work, but it's going to require a lot of revision, especially considering how it interacts with feats, spells, magic items, mosters, etc.
But it should work.
I would advise, however, that before you go to all that trouble, just ask your players:
"If you can only roll attack rolls or only roll defense rolls, which would you choose?"
If they're on board, then go for it.
In case we ever meet, and I become a player in your game, let me cast my vote now. I vote to roll attack rolls. :)
Rolls for both attack and defense don't seem like a wise idea to me. I've seen a few games which feature both, and well it has two effects -
1. It is rolled for PCs and PCs only, in which case there isn't actually any difference in terms of balance, but seems pointless too.
2. It is rolled for all, which slows play right down. I've only seen this in games were combat is intended to be rare.
Actually in a way we already have a "defense roll", everyone just "takes ten" on it -- That base 10 AC.
Actually in a way we already have a "defense roll", everyone just "takes ten" on it -- That base 10 AC.
Ooh... I want to "take 20" when using total defense, then... it might be worth doing!
And can I "take 15" to fight on the defensive? In a way, it's too bad those mechanics aren't tied to the "take x" mechanic, because the way they are, the only time I ever see either one used is when a high-level duelist fights defensively to claim the +1/lvl bonus to AC. No one else uses either one of them at all.Of course, while I'm on the subject, I'll re-iterate my usual rant about wanting to see fighting defensively, Combat Expertise, and Elaborate Parry all merged into some sort of coherent scaling mechanic, instead of all being treated as if they have nothing in common with each other. Maybe anyone can fight defensively for -2 to attacks per +1 AC (max +1/point of BAB), Combat Expertise feat improves the scaling to 1:1, and Elaborate Parry to 2:1 but is capped by BAB or class level, whichever is lower.
That would be more worthwhile wouldn't it?
Just so all are aware I didn't come up with that on my own, it is in the BESM 3.5 book as an option to the standard Base 10 AC system, and is really what is being discussed here.
I rarely see Combat Expertise in action too, the problem seems to be "if they can hit me that easily then I need to drop them quick before they kill me so I need those extra points to hit with and spend on damage because they'll hit me anyways even if I use Combat Expertise."
Sometimes this is true sometimes not, but it is the general argument I hear against Combat Expertise. The few times I see it taken generally because it is required for something else.
|
Actually in a way we already have a "defense roll", everyone just "takes ten" on it -- That base 10 AC.
Also in Unearthed Arcana it suggests dropping the 10 and just going with a d20 roll!
See, what I would like to for a defensive, Sword N Board Fighter, is more than just AC.
I want to see a Fighter that can use his shield to shield bash and stun a guy. I wanna see a Fighter that can use his shield to make people move where he wants them to go. I wanna see a Fighter use his shield to protect the squishy wizard.
The Fighter with a board, should be a battlefield commander. Right now there is no reason at all for the enemy to stop and engage with a Fighter. It makes more sense to run past the Fighter (I take an AoO for 1d8+6? sure no problem), kill the Cleric, then kill the Wizard, then kill the Rogue with his pesky sneak attack and save the Fighter for the last, drawn out kill. He has LOTS of hit points, but is of little threat. Just keep moving and he can't ever use his full attack. You reduce him to a low level character with cool feats that can't be used.
agree, disagree, disagree, disagree... however we've been over the rest of it many times before so:
Post something up. Let's see it.
|
|
agree, disagree, disagree, disagree... however we've been over the rest of it many times before so:
Post something up. Let's see it.
lol I have before. Not going to yet again. :)
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want that to be the ONLY option for a sword and board fighter. I happen to have made one that is VERY offensive, deals quite a bit of damage (as long as he gets his full attack) and is going to be a LOT of fun to play.
I would like the OPTION to do those things. Which I have been writing up feats to do just such things. None of which I feel are anywhere near too overwhelming, overpowered or unreasonable (all are based upon real world fighting styles and have real world inspiration). One day, when I have them all in proper "Feat Format" I will post them here for review and improvement.
Oh and in that previous post I was referring to a more defensive Sword and Board Fighter. You'd be nuts to ignore the TWF or Two-handed Weapon Fighter who is dealing out tons of damage. But the Sword N Board whose only schtick is a high AC... Well, if he has a high AC, I can't hit him, just save him to last. No sense at all just sitting there and letting the others heal or cast fireballs or whatever.
As a house-rule, I've always allowed Shield bonuses to be used against ranged touch attacks... in my mind, using a shield to block against rays and beams is just as effective as against arrows n' sling bullets. This applies to actual shields and other similar bonuses such the Shield spell. Just thought some might find that pertinent to this discussion... or not, lol!
Sorry if this was mentioned earlier, didn't read every above post thoroughly...
Stuffs
Ah alright I miss understood. I thought for a minute we were getting back into the "fighter's can't do anything" thing again. Yes I agree on all points then.
Well since everyone seems to be on a similar page regarding this, let me threadjack slightly.
What about board and board fighters? Can I play a two-shield using Rygar yet?
I've tried building this character several times, and it's always a huge pain.
Basically I'd like to get two weapon fighting going with a pair of shields, but I'd prefer to be able to throw them and still retain a shield bonus at all times. Barring a returning special ability, I might just need to tie a string to them...
Unless someone has a feat in mind to achieve stuff along these lines? Maybe just quick draw and a sack full of spiked bucklers?
What about a two-shield defence feat tree, similar to two-weapon fighting but allowing you to use two shield bonuses at once?
Oh and what kind of weapon is a shield? One-handed? Are bucklers light? Could I get a mithral small shield to count as light for two-weapon purposes?
Well since everyone seems to be on a similar page regarding this, let me threadjack slightly.
What about board and board fighters? Can I play a two-shield using Rygar yet?
I've tried building this character several times, and it's always a huge pain.
Basically I'd like to get two weapon fighting going with a pair of shields, but I'd prefer to be able to throw them and still retain a shield bonus at all times. Barring a returning special ability, I might just need to tie a string to them...
Unless someone has a feat in mind to achieve stuff along these lines? Maybe just quick draw and a sack full of spiked bucklers?
What about a two-shield defence feat tree, similar to two-weapon fighting but allowing you to use two shield bonuses at once?
This is a joke, right?