In my games, if you're flat footed, you don't get your shield bonus. This makes sense to me as when flat footed you are unprepared and can't raise your shield arm up to block the attack. Some of my players like this rule, and some of them cried foul. I just want to verify what the RAW say on the matter. If the RAW say you do get your shield bonus when flat footed, was this an oversight on WotC/Paizo's part?
whenever you lose dex bonus you lose shield bonus in my campaign, shield does pretty well for many characters regardless, I apply this to the shield spell as well, it prolly will go for any shield bonus.
It's a houserule but it seems to make sense and doesn't have all that much impact.
RAW you DO get your shield bonus all the time if your wearing it.
I agree with that.
If I was going to add a house rule that being flat footed affected your shield bonus, I would either cut the bonus in half or decrease it by a fixed amount. Even if your not aware of the attack and can't block, it's still a big hunk of wood or metal that your opponent is going to have to swing around. In reality, a shield bonus is partly a dodge bonus and partly a cover bonus.
If you are flat footed and carrying a torch, do you not get the light bonus to visibility either?
:)
random much today Beckett, that is completely not the point and you know it :p
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
The lack of "facing" rules in D&D is what really makes this a conundrum. Your character receives his shield bonus to AC against all attacks in D&D, even if they're coming at him from all sides. This is a massive logical hole, but one that we endure for the sake of gameplay. I'd say, if the attack is coming at your character's front, even if he's flat-footed, that shield is still obstructing a fair portion of his body and making himself harder to hit. Whether he's aware of the attack or not is irrelevant. Similarly, if the attack comes from behind, yeah, his shield isn't going to help.
There's no easy fix to this. I prefer to stick with RAW here since, as was mentioned above, shields are a sub-optimal choice to begin with. There's no reason to further penalize the character.
random much today Beckett, that is completely not the point and you know it :pIf you are flat footed and carrying a torch, do you not get the light bonus to visibility either?
:)
I don't think that's off topic at all. Player buys an item and wants to know under what conditions is that item useless. To my mind, if you are carrying a shield it is covering many vital spots. It doesn't simply vanish because you were surprised. Its not a question of stance, speed or agility - the thing is carried and assumed to be working. Since you don't need a dex related defense roll to use it - I don't see the grounds for losing the advantage.
Do you want to give them a Dex bonus to their shields under normal circumstances?
Sigurd
same as you cant make an attack of oppurtunity with a weapon when flatfooted, basically you can still do it without dex, but not when flat footed.
It is about wether you see an attack coming, I am not discussing the RAW that is pretty clearly not in the rules. so I'll skip the player buys a shield, it might still cover some, but it is much less useful if you do not see an attack coming. to the point I'd argue it makes more sense to ignore the AC bonus.
you do not think you use a shield to block actively ?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd propose this house rule: If you are flat-footed, you lose your shield bonus to AC. However, whenever you are attacked in melee, you may use an Attack of Opportunity to declare an "active block" against the attack with your shield. Roll (BAB + STR modifier + shield bonus) to generate a "shield block". The attack must must overcome both your armor class and shield block in order to deliver damage.
(Why STR modifier instead of DEX? Because you're trying to move the shield rapidly, which requires a strong arm. Besides, DEX modifiers are already at play, in your AC.)
(It makes shields a good choice for somebody with Combat Reflexes and a high Strength.)
|
random much today Beckett, that is completely not the point and you know it :pIf you are flat footed and carrying a torch, do you not get the light bonus to visibility either?
:)
Mostly a joke, but I'm also showing a point. Also, keep in mind that (except 4E), most combats only last a round or two, so this also essentually means that the houserule is taking away the shield for most fights, or a great deal of the time for many fights. So why bother with a shield? I could understand you wanting this for say, someone that doesn't have the correct proficiencies, but not in general.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How so, Beckett? You're right, that Improved Initiative gives the shieldbearer a better chance of being ready for an attack, and a hefty DEX combines well with Combat Reflexes. But a Fighter has just as good a reason for having a good DEX as a Barbarian (better, if the campaign is using a point-buy mechanic and the Barbarian's player wants an advantageous Wisdom), and Rogues aren't proficient with shields in the first place.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think I understand. You're unhappy with Dork Lord's original post, regarding shields and flat-footedness.
I was trying to accomodate that, while also giving the shieldbearers some compensatory oomph. Your issue isn't with the compensation.
Regarding flat-footed shield use: the Barbarian's keen senses and savage skittishness let him react to danger faster than the Fighter. Once combat is joined, the Fighter trained with Combat Reflexes can actively interpose his shield more than the Barbarian.
If a mid- to high-level combat only lasts two or three rounds, then the opposition needs to be doing heavy damage-per-round to the heroes in order for there to be any dramatic tension at all. So being able to actively block an attack becomes useful.
If it were up to me, shields would add to Touch AC, as well, 'cause the whole idea of shields is: if the bad guy's struck your shield, he hasn't hit you.
btw, not exactly related, what do you guys think about someone with a buckler strapped on with secondary properties, like fire resistance but not actively using it, wielding an off-hand weapon for example, would he still get fire resistance ?
yea I figured, I could see how that could be a way to get a cheesy extra magic item slot.. oh well ^_^
I can see penalizing a shield bonus by half (round down) as opposed to taking the whole thing way, but the point is that if your shield is just hanging at your side it's not offering as much protection. To me, having your shield readied to deflect blows is a situation in which you're not flat footed. How often are the PCs ending up flat footed anyway? There's all this talk about combat only taking 2-3 rounds and flat-footedness taking up a 3rd of those rounds, etc... are you assuming the party is getting surprised/flat-footed every single combat? That's a bit unrealistic in my experience. Penalizing a flat-footed shield user is not making him obsolete. It's penalizing a situation that shouldn't be happening very often in the first place.
As a side note, I love that idea of using an AoO as a "shield parry" block maneuver. I just may try that in my games.
|
|
I think I understand. You're unhappy with Dork Lord's original post, regarding shields and flat-footedness.
I was trying to accomodate that, while also giving the shieldbearers some compensatory oomph. Your issue isn't with the compensation.
Sorry, yah, though I wouldn't say unhappy. It's his/her game and they might be some call for it. I don't think it is a good universal rule though.
While I kind of like the idea of shield to touch AC, it would pretty much make the Monk completely useless. One of the good sides to the Monk is that they tend to have the best Touch and Flat-Footed Ac's with a not-that-bad normal AC. Givine everyone that uses shields a free +1 - +9 to Touch kind of take away any point in playing a Monk (as oppossed to say a Ranger that two weapon fights with Monk like weapons and calls them unarmed or somehing).
|
|
I can see penalizing a shield bonus by half (round down) as opposed to taking the whole thing way, but the point is that if your shield is just hanging at your side it's not offering as much protection. To me, having your shield readied to deflect blows is a situation in which you're not flat footed. How often are the PCs ending up flat footed anyway? There's all this talk about combat only taking 2-3 rounds and flat-footedness taking up a 3rd of those rounds, etc... are you assuming the party is getting surprised/flat-footed every single combat? That's a bit unrealistic in my experience. Penalizing a flat-footed shield user is not making him obsolete. It's penalizing a situation that shouldn't be happening very often in the first place.
As a side note, I love that idea of using an AoO as a "shield parry" block maneuver. I just may try that in my games.
While it probably is't every single combat, I wouldn't say it rare either. I can see it not being allowed when the shield wielder is unaware of the attack, but that is not the same thing as being flat footed (though similar). A shield's protection is more from the fact that it covers the defender and less that the wielder deftly blocks and parries incoming attacks with it. For the mos part, you don't need to do anything when using a shield (except Buckler), but have it on right and in front of you. Don't think I'm trying to be confrontational or tell you that your wrong, I just wouldn't use the rule, myself.