Finish with that stuff when your opponent is dazed and reeling, but never lead off with it.
Hah! Why get fancy when a straight cross would do? ;)
Finish with that stuff when your opponent is dazed and reeling, but never lead off with it.Hah! Why get fancy when a straight cross would do? ;)
Because the cameras are rolling?
Because the girls are watching?
Because you spent all that time learning how to do it, might as well get a little satisfaction from it?
Because a straight cross finishes the fight, but a leaping spinning back kick to the chin finishes the fight with pizazz?
;)
Otherwise, no real reason. Your way works fine too, with less sweat. My jujitsu instructor would completely agree with your point 100%.
Because a straight cross finishes the fight, but a leaping spinning back kick to the chin finishes the fight with pizazz?
I hear ya, man. That's how I used to fight in high school, but that's only because there was always a crowd. ;)
Side note:
Wow! Am I glad I went to a different high school. Captain of the chess team (hey, don't knock it, it was good money) and playing D&D all through high school, not to mention taking honors AP calculus and computer science in high school - if ever there was a guy half the school could beat up and probably wanted to beat up, I was that guy.
Now I'm a computer nerd living in a house on the hill, driving cars those other highschool guys only dream of, and I'm still a D&D geek.
The last fight I was in, in my entire life, was in 3rd grade. I lost. Somehow this geek made it through Jr. High and Highschool, college, and more years after college than I'm going to admit, without ever getting into any fights.
Except, of course, for sparring and martial arts tournaments. Never did full-contact though - I was done with MA before that stuff became popular...
|
wordsThis is fun! I've never been the "crazy" who is fussed at by everyone before. =D
Well, assume away, but don't sneer at me if I refuse to go along with it.
I'm not sneering at all, just pointing out that there is absolutely zero evidence of a real-world two shield fighting style. That should probably tell you something, since you're certainly not the first guy to come up with the idea.
The idea that shields have to be huge and heavy is misguided, particularly in D&D where they can be made of lighter materials. But even a thin steel shield with a bit of banding on the back or front would be very sturdy and relatively light. (People are wielding 10-15 lbs. weapons regularly, after all)
You're the one who tryed to compare shields to tonfas, I don't care what you make a shield out of it's not going to be that light, unless you're making it to hang on your wall.
As for blocking your view, I think the image you have is of hiding behind the shield, where I would prefer to use it for both blocking and parrying. If it were true that you could never see a quick-moving opponent, then it would be as true for a single shield as for two.
I'll grant you this, if I were holding two pieces of stone, one inch thick and five feet across; it would probably be pretty difficult to fight. I was thinking two small mithral shields, so no, not the same as your assumptions.
Two pieces of stone? Now you've gone from tonfas to granite. Could we have some consistency on the playing field?
|
** spoiler omitted **...You might consider aikido. I'm not being a hater here, as I've studied it myself, but Tae Kwon Do is a sub-par choice for an actual fight.I've considered taking some Judo, which seems to be the utter anti-thesis of Taekwondo. Close combat, throws and grapples. I'm built rather like a bear, short legs but good sized arms. I'll get around to it one day (says the procrastinator)Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
I couldn't agree more, I was at a Tae Kwon Do tournament when I was 14 (green belt at the time), my first match I won, as I started with a jump side kick and easily scored a point against that opponent, got my second point pretty quick, and moved on...
In the second round, my opponent who had other training than Tae Kwon Do, and had watched me in my first match, waited for my opening kick, stepped back and landed a crescent kick across my nose...he definitely defeated me there...he also won the tournament for green belt...
Tae Kwon Do...too flashy for it's own good...but it has an inherent "Dazzling Display" feat built in...LoL.
Tae Kwon Do...too flashy for its own good...
See the proverbial master's quote -- just because you practice some flashy moves doesn't mean you have to use them. Anyone goofy enough to try and fight a trained opponent with jumping back spinning kicks deserves to get clobbered.
|
|
Tae Kwon Do...too flashy for its own good...See the proverbial master's quote -- just because you practice some flashy moves doesn't mean you have to use them. Anyone goofy enough to try and fight a trained opponent with jumping back spinning kicks deserves to get clobbered.
Sounds like a video I've seen, Fight starts and Dude A steps up and proceeds to wow the crowd with kicks and flips and cartwheels and backflips, then in the middle of a flip Dude B steps forward and drills Dude A in the face. Game over. It's probably on Youtube, but... blocked. :(
Finish with that stuff when your opponent is dazed and reeling, but never lead off with it. Otherwise, it's just for show-and-tell to impress the ladies.
And here I made all that effort to be gentle in my criticism. ;)
Side note:
** spoiler omitted **
I was in the same boat in high school. Got roughed up a lot because I was bigger than most, but didn't do much fighting. Took Tae Kwon Do to put a stop to it. Finding out that martial arts are exercise I don't mind doing was a happy accident.
As far as I know, no one here is a respected scholar on rare fighting styles. So I'm going to continue to doubt, thanks. Anyway, what does it matter whether anyone has done it? There's not a lot of people who fought with spiked chains, and yet that's one of the most popular munchkin builds around.
How heavy do you expect a shield to be, exactly?
You can't refute that one shield works just fine, right? So why would two suddenly make things impossible? Seems like you could say the same about swords, no WAY wielding two blades would be functional...
Eesh. The two pieces of stone thing was hyperbole to underscore that your "shields are big and bulky, etc." argument was silly.
Sounds like a video I've seen, Fight starts and Dude A steps up and proceeds to wow the crowd with kicks and flips and cartwheels and backflips, then in the middle of a flip Dude B steps forward and drills Dude A in the face. Game over. It's probably on Youtube, but... blocked. :(Tae Kwon Do...too flashy for its own good...See the proverbial master's quote -- just because you practice some flashy moves doesn't mean you have to use them. Anyone goofy enough to try and fight a trained opponent with jumping back spinning kicks deserves to get clobbered.
I've seen that video! You're right, it's awesome. =B
You can't refute that one shield works just fine, right? So why would two suddenly make things impossible? Seems like you could say the same about swords, no WAY wielding two blades would be functional...
Two swords don't really get in each other's way, though. With two large shields, you'd have to rotate, penguin-style, to bring the second one into striking position. If you stand face-forward and try and swing with both, their overlapping areas will just foul each other -- unless you're striking sequentially with the inside edges instead of the bottoms, in which case the whole reach thing becomes an issue. Two bucklers I could see, but a buckler-bash isn't a big damage-dealer.
Yes, an axe kick should pretty much only be used as a finishing maneuver...
Do you remember Andy Hug (K1 fame)? He slipped his axe kicks into his combos flawlessly (I'm sure there's some vids of him up on You Tube). But in my experience, I found most of tkd's techniques dubious for real-world situations (as I personally find any point-fighting/kata-based systems). Of course, Andy Hug was… Shotokan karate? I think? But he supplemented his techniques with boxing (which any serious full-contact fighter needs to do, imo, especially in K1).
@DM Blake:
Do you still keep up on chess? I learned to play chess when I was four; my stepfather at the time was William Schill, who later went on to be WA state chessmaster in 2000 and again in 2001. At the time, he taught me a basic opening strategy aimed at controlling the center (center pawns out, knights to c&f files, bishops out behind the pawns, and an early kingside castle). It was a good enough strategy so I was better than average, casual chess players growing up, but I didn’t start studying chess until 2004. I got back in touch with Bill, and signed up on ICC and started studying chess theory (openings, tactics, endgame theory, etc.), and managed to get my rating as high as 1800, but before long it would always slip back down into the 1350-1550 range, depending. But I haven’t played on ICC for over a year now. Still, I love chess… In fact, I think I’m going to throw in Chessmaster XI later!
@DM Blake:
** spoiler omitted **
The same year I basically burned out on chess. It wasn't fun anymore, and I was nowhere near making enough to live on. So the job, the girlfriend, and the martial arts got priority, and chess essentially vanished for me.
I'm now playing on GameKnot.com with a current rating of 1979, but I haven't studied a book or memorized an opening or played competitively in over 20 years.
As for your opening, the strong classic pawn center is usually a good idea, centralized knights is always a good idea, but the bishops would do better alongside the pawns (in front of the knights), or even one step farther to the b & g files if your opponent gives them reason. Behind the pawns, their scope is limited. Try looking at the Guioco Piano, Max Lange, and Ruy Lopez openings to see how much more the bishops can be if you pushe them out a little more aggressively.
@DM Blake:
That's a very respectable rating! Bill's is around 2300 I think (but that's what he does for a living, so go figure). I feel like I'll never break 1800; it feels like I get up there, then slide waaayyy back down (rinse and repeat!). As far as the opening, absolutely! I don't open so symmetrically anymore--that was how I played basically up until I started studying the game seriously in '04. But, after all those years of that tactic, I almost always open with e4 as White (which quite regularly leads to Ruy Lopez). But yeah, I've really been slacking this past year.
Shield guys: Actually spinning/rotating your torso is a great way to put your weight into swings, I'm fine with it. Plus it looks cool.
Fighting guys: I hate K1/UFC/etc. The whole Gracie clan in UFC is particularly bad. Watching submission fighters is about as fun as watching house painters. Not to mention that most submissions seem to rely on the victim being a good sport and not removing your eye, breaking your collarbone, or de-nutting you.
I don't recall seeing any two shield fighting styles in any of the historical manuals I've looked through.
I suggest rather than asking us to prove it didn't exist, you go out, do some research, and prove it did exist.
Speaking as someone who participates in a medievally themed combat sport (SCA rattan combat), I think it would be very impractical to try to fight with two shields. They were fighting for their lives, and experimented to see what worked best, and things that didn't work, were discarded.
I'd also suggest you look into physics, particularly leverage. Heavy thing on a stick, sharp edges on a "stick"... There is a definite theme.
Shields don't have that leverage advantage, and the striking surfaces are much larger, which not only spreads out the force, but also as others have pointed out, makes it difficult to get past your opponent's defences.
Shields are great for pushing/shoving, fouling your opponent's weapon and/or shield, and keeping you alive. You can do some damage with them, but it is mostly to the same effect as punching someone, with a limited range of motion. (As for hip rotation, you do that with the weapons with leverage too, so you're still inferior.)
Shields were also seen as disposable. If your opponent's weapon got stuck in it, it was because the shield was being destroyed/damaged. And hey, your enemy couldn't hit you back, so odds are you could kill him before going to get a spare shield, or simply two handing your weapon.
The D&D rules are admittedly not very realistic. You've pointed out the outlandish weights for weapons, which in real life are generally in the order of 3lbs for single handed, and 7 lbs for two handed. So in that "science is but a Nerf(TM) ball for us to jam into whatever form we feel like", you can do what you like. However be an adult, and face that it isn't a practical style in medieval-iod combat :)
First of all, I never asked you or anyone else to prove jack. I asked for feat ideas for a fantasy game, not a lecture from dubious authorities, professor.
Secondly, you seem to assume that the only way to strike with a shield is by bashing with the broad flat surface. This implies to me that not only is your knowledge of shield use sorely lacking, but that your training is largely or exclusively in British fencing (and I use "fencing" here very loosely).
Not all shields are capable of what you describe, and not all shared these limitations. But no, tell me more about all the books you've read.
It's clear to me that nothing constructive is going to come out of this, so there's not a lot of point in continuing. I'm not about to apologize for defending my stance, particularly when I see the same erroneous arguments over and over, but fine; whatever. But please don't insult me with calls for, "Be an adult, think like I do".
でも、あちけ&am p;#12371;のやろ。
でも、あち{ 69;&am p;#12371;のやろ。
Sigh. Probably just as well that the board won't display hiragana.
/grumble
Graaah! Smell fight!
One you fight one shield. One you fight two shield.
I eat loser. Then I eat winner!
All happy!
Besides PHB2 and CW what are some good sources for defensive shield feats?
The two pieces of stone thing was hyperbole to underscore that your "shields are big and bulky, etc." argument was silly.
The biggest argument against two-shield fighting (as opposed to two-weapon fighting) isn't the weight, reach, etc. of the shields. A 2 ft diameter round shield (i.e., small/light) is about as easy to wield as many weapons and is usually held in the center (behind the metal boss) instead of strapped to the arm, giving it about 1 ft reach from the hand; sharpen the metal edge round the rim (although most shield rims were made of soft metal to catch the opponent's blades) and it can be thrown almost like a discus using the grip in the center.
The biggest problem with fighting with two shields (and the reason it was not done historically) is that it seriously compromises your vision of the battlefield. One shield, used properly, already limits vision to a noticeable extent; one of the common tactics in fighting a sword-and-board opponent, especially if you are smaller, is to get close enough to hide behind their shield. Two shields just block out too much of the battlefield to be useful, where two-weapons can be used almost as effectively in defense (especially if designed for the task with basket hilts, bell guards, etc.), are usually at least as effective for offense, and allow you to see what your opponent(s) are doing.
Then again, "there are no rules" regarding how helmets and shields restrict vision (apart from some 1st Ed and/or 2nd Ed AD&D rules regarding various helms and surprise checks, IIRC)...
P.S.: On fighting utility of various martial arts, one of the most important distinctions is whether it's taught as a combat style or an exhibition style. Tae Kwon Do (at least in the U.S.) is usually taught as an exhibition style, hence the emphasis on flashy moves. However, as a combat style, the striking speed can be faster than other martial arts. Tactically, whether hard or soft (or defense, grapples, strikes, and throws) techniques are better is very much a rock-paper-scissors decision depending on the opponent; in matches between well-rounded fighters, who use all techniques, it usually will come down to grappling as the deciding factor (unless one of them gets in a K.O. shot earlier).
The two pieces of stone thing was hyperbole to underscore that your "shields are big and bulky, etc." argument was silly.The biggest argument against two-shield fighting (as opposed to two-weapon fighting) isn't the weight, reach, etc. of the shields. A 2 ft diameter round shield (i.e., small/light) is about as easy to wield as many weapons and is usually held in the center (behind the metal boss) instead of strapped to the arm, giving it about 1 ft reach from the hand; sharpen the metal edge round the rim (although most shield rims were made of soft metal to catch the opponent's blades) and it can be thrown almost like a discus using the grip in the center.
The biggest problem with fighting with two shields (and the reason it was not done historically) is that it seriously compromises your vision of the battlefield. One shield, used properly, already limits vision to a noticeable extent; one of the common tactics in fighting a sword-and-board opponent, especially if you are smaller, is to get close enough to hide behind their shield. Two shields just block out too much of the battlefield to be useful, where two-weapons can be used almost as effectively in defense (especially if designed for the task with basket hilts, bell guards, etc.), are usually at least as effective for offense, and allow you to see what your opponent(s) are doing.
Then again, "there are no rules" regarding how helmets and shields restrict vision (apart from some 1st Ed and/or 2nd Ed AD&D rules regarding various helms and surprise checks, IIRC)...
P.S.: On fighting utility of various martial arts, one of the most important distinctions is whether it's taught as a combat style or an exhibition style. Tae Kwon Do (at least in the U.S.) is usually taught as an exhibition style, hence the emphasis on flashy moves. However, as a combat style, the striking speed can be faster than other martial arts. Tactically, whether hard or soft (or defense, grapples, strikes, and throws) techniques are better is very much a rock-paper-scissors decision depending on the opponent; in matches between well-rounded fighters, who use all techniques, it usually will come down to grappling as the deciding factor (unless one of them gets in a K.O. shot earlier).
Thank you for your input. I disagree with your assessment of vision difficulty, primarily because with a simple tilt you can reduce the blockage tremendously. I'll grant you that there's a good chance this discouraged any real-world use, along with the fact that people tend to enjoy offense more than defense.
You're right, there's no rules for armor/held items affecting vision anyway, except maybe tower shields used as cover. Of course, there's no armor bonus for wearing a helmet, which seems silly...
You're right about martial arts taught for offense/defense vs fun/exercise/show. Tae Kwon Do is usually taught as the second, even in Korea where it's pretty much the national sport. It has to do with the origins, which is kind of a dry he said she said story. The other style of TKD, known to some as "correct" or "traditional" is a good deal more combat focused. Unfortunately, it still relies on more flash than substance.
Personally, the dichotomy that I've always found fascinating is martial arts taught for defense versus ma taught for offense. You don't find many teachers willing to teach you ***kicking 101 rather than self defense; but depending on the style, they're out there. I've always been blown away by the difference between their personal styles and those of more PC, "last resort" fighters.
Oh, and one more rambly aside... Karate, as taught in the U.S., is often Tae Kwon Do in disguise. When the style first came to the states, they had trouble finding students because no one knew what it was. So after a while they just started calling themselves "karate" because it was something everybody responded to. There have been occasional competitive fighters who claim to use karate while pretty clearly using TKD...
I get you on the grappling thing, it's true that someone often grabs a leg, trips, or throws in order to end a match. The bit that really bothers me is specifically submission stuff. Not joint locks, but moves that focus on asphyxiation or blood circulation; sometimes even muscle stretching or twitching. Not only is it boring to watch, it wouldn't be employed nearly as often or effectively if the "victim" could just bite out a chunk of arm or give a good yank to the old kintama.
it wouldn't be employed nearly as often or effectively if the "victim" could just bite out a chunk of arm or give a good yank to the old kintama.
You're not going to be biting anything once that choke is cinched. Maybe prior, but not once it's locked in. As far as yanking on stuff, I can see that maybe working from a guillotine--*IF* the dude is wearing bagging shorts or something, but that's certainly not going to happen from a rear naked choke and rear mount. I think biting, eye gouging, and all the rest of the so-called "dirty fighting" is certainly stuff to watch out for, but it in no way nullifies those techniques.
it wouldn't be employed nearly as often or effectively if the "victim" could just bite out a chunk of arm or give a good yank to the old kintama.You're not going to be biting anything once that choke is cinched. Maybe prior, but not once it's locked in. As far as yanking on stuff, I can see that maybe working from a guillotine--*IF* the dude is wearing bagging shorts or something, but that's certainly not going to happen from a rear naked choke and rear mount. I think biting, eye gouging, and all the rest of the so-called "dirty fighting" is certainly stuff to watch out for, but it in no way nullifies those techniques.
Most of the matches I've seen this stuff employed in, people are wearing shorts. You're right, it's not easy to break holds or concentrate on something else while you're in them. It's not impossible though and when your opponent is sitting still trying to twist part of you it's usually a lot easier to get ahold of small targets like trachea, eyes, armpits, soft spots in the hands or limbs, collarbones, etc.
[Edit]
Dirty? I call it effective...
Personally, the dichotomy that I've always found fascinating is martial arts taught for defense versus ma taught for offense. You don't find many teachers willing to teach you ***kicking 101 rather than self defense; but depending on the style, they're out there. I've always been blown away by the difference between their personal styles and those of more PC, "last resort" fighters.
Find a good Combato instructor if you want a serious fighting style. Especially one that's a retired Marine (just remember there's no such thing as an ex- or former Marine).
You're right, it's not easy to break holds or concentrate on something else while you're in them. It's not impossible though and when your opponent is sitting still trying to twist part of you it's usually a lot easier to get ahold of small targets like trachea, eyes, armpits, soft spots in the hands or limbs, collarbones, etc.
[Edit]
Dirty? I call it effective...
Of course, UFC/etc. is still a sport, with little considerations about trying not to kill or maim/permanently disable your opponent...
In a real fight, yeah, take the other person down as quick as possible: Gouge the eyes, crush the trachea, kick/knee the groin, break/dislocate the joints; whatever works.
Of course, UFC/etc. is still a sport, with little considerations about trying not to kill or maim/permanently disable your opponent...
In a real fight, yeah, take the other person down as quick as possible: Gouge the eyes, crush the trachea, kick/knee the groin, break/dislocate the joints; whatever works.
I might just go make a feat about this in my thread...
I've found sword and board fighters are incredibly hard to hit. A 7th level sword and board fighter can get 33 AC and there isn't much at CR 7 that can hit that with less than roll of 20.
Using 15 point build I can make fighter at 7th level with 33 AC. In my game with the beta I have fighter like that but slightly less AC as the beta Full Plate is 8 but knowing that it's been raised to 9 means more AC. I noticed at 7th level I couldn't touch the fighters. Now they are 10th and it's not so bad anymore. 7th was bad for us because the AC just seemed to fall into place there at once. The increase in due to armor training meant +2 AC, grabbing shield focus for another +1, and upgrading armor and shield for another +2 meant a +5 jump going form 6th to 7th level. I don't see the jump being as big when the next armor training shows up though.
I've found sword and board fighters are incredibly hard to hit. A 7th level sword and board fighter can get 33 AC and there isn't much at CR 7 that can hit that with less than roll of 20.
I don't see the jump being as big when the next armor training shows up though.
You've exactly identified the problem: shield-augmented AC hits a point of diminishing returns fairly quickly, and by 14th level you're struggling to improve it a little bit while every monster in the book will be power attacking you with gleeful abandon. As a variant, I'm experimenting with allowing the fighter's armor training to apply to a shield as well, and for the bonuses to stack, so that a single-classed sword-and-shield fighter is automatically improving his AC at +2 per 4 levels instead of +1.
You've exactly identified the problem: shield-augmented AC hits a point of diminishing returns fairly quickly, and by 14th level you're struggling to improve it a little bit while every monster in the book will be power attacking you with gleeful abandon. As a variant, I'm experimenting with allowing the fighter's armor training to apply to a shield as well, and for the bonuses to stack, so that a single-classed sword-and-shield fighter is automatically improving his AC at +2 per 4 levels instead of +1.I've found sword and board fighters are incredibly hard to hit. A 7th level sword and board fighter can get 33 AC and there isn't much at CR 7 that can hit that with less than roll of 20.
I don't see the jump being as big when the next armor training shows up though.
That's all well and good for a fighter, but it still leaves everyone else out in the cold when it comes to shields.
Wouldn't it be best to consider mechanics that benefit shields, and all shield users, rather than just one class?
Wouldn't it be best to consider mechanics that benefit shields, and all shield users, rather than just one class?
YES! That would be vastly better, I assure you... but a suitable fix along those lines requires more than 15 seconds of thought to come up with. EDIT: and it just got a bit harder to bridge the gap: as of the Bonus Bestiary, claws are now never secondary attacks, even if a bite is already primary. In other words, right out of the gate, shields need a +5 boost to AC bonus and scaling DR just to break even with many monsters' boost from 3.5e. We're making negative progress towards keeping shields viable!
You've exactly identified the problem: shield-augmented AC hits a point of diminishing returns fairly quickly, and by 14th level you're struggling to improve it a little bit while every monster in the book will be power attacking you with gleeful abandon. As a variant, I'm experimenting with allowing the fighter's armor training to apply to a shield as well, and for the bonuses to stack, so that a single-classed sword-and-shield fighter is automatically improving his AC at +2 per 4 levels instead of +1.I've found sword and board fighters are incredibly hard to hit. A 7th level sword and board fighter can get 33 AC and there isn't much at CR 7 that can hit that with less than roll of 20.
I don't see the jump being as big when the next armor training shows up though.
The AC is still going up by 1 per level on average though. I do see it maxing out by 20th level though probably 15th level to be exact as that's the last level of armor training. So between the armor training, feats and magic items that AC is going up 1-2 point per level.
The issue I have is that this leaves the other classes in the dust which means to hit the fighter you need a monster with a much higher to hit chance. So while it might hit the fighter it auto hitting the Paladin and Cleric. The rogue is rely on stealth and mobility to avoid being targeted let alone hit so not as big a deal there.
it just got a bit harder to bridge the gap: as of the Bonus Bestiary, claws are now never secondary attacks, even if a bite is already primary. In other words, right out of the gate, shields need a +5 boost to AC bonus and scaling DR just to break even with many monsters' boost from 3.5e. We're making negative progress towards keeping shields viable!
That's not exactly true.
In 3.5, when the bear bites the fighter, the bear uses his best attack at his full attack bonus vs. the PC's full AC. Then uses his claws at a penalty so they are less likely to hit.
Now in Pathfinder, the bear will still bite with (probably) the same attack bonus against the same PC's same AC, so this will remain essentially even. Then the bear will attack with his claws with no penalty so he is more likely to hit than his 3.5 predecesor.
So, main attack is the same, secondary attacks are easier.
Some Pathfinder things have benefitted AC all around. Like more AC for heavier armor types, more AC from the Dodge feat. Maybe there is even more that I am not aware of.
This will result in the Pathfinder bear hitting less often with his bite and more often with his claws.
So I don't think we're making that much negative progress.
And I certainly don't think we need +5 AC boost to shields and a scaling DR just to break even - this is overreacting. Further, even if it were true, the TWF and 2H guys would also need AC and DR to break even too.
My real issue with sword and board, is that you really only need so much AC. A fighter with some good dex, and some good magic armor is going to have a ton, but his touch AC is still going to be pretty bad.
I've always thought it would be cool to have shield AC apply to ranged touch attacks (or all touch attacks even) so long as you are not flat footed.
My real issue with sword and board, is that you really only need so much AC. A fighter with some good dex, and some good magic armor is going to have a ton, but his touch AC is still going to be pretty bad.
I've always thought it would be cool to have shield AC apply to ranged touch attacks (or all touch attacks even) so long as you are not flat footed.
I agree, a shield against ranged touch attacks makes sense to me in most circumstances. The few that don't make sense can easily be exceptions such a electrical attack through a metal shield. A Wood shield though would work.
In a real fight, yeah, take the other person down as quick as possible: Gouge the eyes, crush the trachea, kick/knee the groin, break/dislocate the joints; whatever works.
Yup. I've found punching people in the throat is a lot more effective than kicking someone in the unmentionables. And Bruce Lee was a big proponent of eye strikes (like Dwight of the Office says, "Eyes are the groin of the head!"). ;)