Shield bonus when flat-footed?


Rules Questions


Just like the title. Do you keep your shield bonus when you're flat-footed? It would seem to me that you wouldn't, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb tribal. :)


Luei wrote:
Just like the title. Do you keep your shield bonus when you're flat-footed? It would seem to me that you wouldn't, but what do I know, I'm just a dumb tribal. :)

No

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

PRD wrote:
Flat-Footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

You keep the sheild bonus.

Shadow Lodge

Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.


Beckett wrote:
Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.

Yah I wasw thinking of touch sorry

Shadow Lodge

Yerv Kinkash wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.
Yah I wasw thinking of touch sorry

NP, easy to confuse.


Beckett wrote:
Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.

Like Beckett says.

Obviously, there may be SOME rationale for not letting it work this way (i.e. house-ruling, contrary to RAW), given Shields need active usage, etc, though that runs into problems with the lack of 'facing' or directionality... Overall though, given the compromises you are making to use a shield in the first place (light shields or bucklers being most able to switch on spur of moment, but with least benefits), I think the RAW is very reasonable here.


Beckett wrote:
Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.

Umm... so if you are climbing a cliff... and you have your shield strapped to your back... you must get a shield bonus too? After all, it's covering a good portion of your exposed body...


StrawPaladin wrote:
Beckett wrote:
Yes, you keep it. Yerv Kinkash may be thinking of Touch AC. Basically, (as long as you have the shield out), it is still blocking things and providing you a portion of cover, which the AC bonus comes from.
Umm... so if you are climbing a cliff... and you have your shield strapped to your back... you must get a shield bonus too? After all, it's covering a good portion of your exposed body...

No.

A shield strapped to your back is not equipped.

You keep your shield bonus while flat footed because, per RAW, you loose only DEX and Dodge bonuses to AC while flat footed.

Real world mechanics have no bearing on the issue.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
StrawPaladin wrote:
Umm... so if you are climbing a cliff... and you have your shield strapped to your back... you must get a shield bonus too? After all, it's covering a good portion of your exposed body...

Unless you are wearing armor. Then it's redundant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice thread revival, by the way: seven and a half years. Might be a new record.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Nice thread revival, by the way: seven and a half years. Might be a new record.

I'm pretty sure I've seen longer.

Also StrawPaladin was asking a new question, and it related to posts upthread. It seems like a good time to revive an old thread.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
MrCharisma wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Nice thread revival, by the way: seven and a half years. Might be a new record.

I'm pretty sure I've seen longer.

Also StrawPaladin was asking a new question, and it related to posts upthread. It seems like a good time to revive an old thread.

The main problem with reviving old threads is that it is possible that the rule has been modified in the meantime. It didn't happened in this instance, but there are several instances where it happened.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

If you have a new question, make a new thread.

But first, do a little research to see if your question has been asked before. We live in a "Google it" world. Leaving the burden of research on everyone else is just lazy and selfish.

If, after searching, you don't find anything useful, then pose your question in the new thread. Link to any previous threads you found, and present any different sides of opinion.

You're far more likely to garner respectful and attentive answers, and your question is more likely to get answered officially if it's ambiguous and/or contentious enough.

But really, there's very little reason to ever necro something so old. It leads to more problems than answers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

Maybe OP was confused about the difference of not being ready for combat, and the FF condition that applies at the start of combat?

Combat wrote:

Ready or Drop a Shield

Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC, or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose, requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or drop a shield as a free action combined with a regular move.

Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action.

Sczarni

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The OP was 7 years ago >.>


That doesn't invalidate the info available at the time.


Nefreet wrote:
Leaving the burden of research on everyone else is just lazy and selfish.

Or more likely it's that StrawPaladin is new to the forums and is inexperienced with the search functions... which a single click can tell you.

I'd avoid name-calling, as a more experienced member of the forums you should be familiar with the COMMUNITY GUIDELINES.

If someone new to these forums gets a lot of negative feedback they may decide not to come back, and that would be a shame.


YEAH. THAT.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

My reply was to Diego Rossi and part of the continuation of a dialogue you were also a part of.

If you're going to single out a single sentence, then sure, you can frame it however you want out of context.

Please don't do that.

I committed no ad hominem, or even addressed the poster you assume I was (I had to scroll up to even find him after you post).

The entirety of my post was a general statement as part of a larger conversation.


Perhaps. The tone and usage of the word you made it seem directed not general. Thays the written word for you, though.
That being said we can all agree new comers should be welcomed and move on.


Since the is Rules, asked and answered more than adaquately.
I understand why the question came up, and why the question makes sense outside of the literal rules. The rules do not accurately reflect the value of the shield. Until late period articulated plate armor, the shield was much more important to defense than any armor. (Note that combat training for plate armor actually involves using it actively as well as passively, so it somewhat blurs armor and shield.)


Nefreet wrote:
My reply was to Diego Rossi and part of the continuation of a dialogue you were also a part of.

Fair enough. I guess it's probably a good idea to actually reply to a person in these circumstances (like, quote them and reply to the quote). That way it's clearer who your comments are directed at.

Also yes I was being condescending in my reply to you, I'll try not to do that as well =P


So... along the same lines... I think. I understand why the shield is used for flat-footed. Does anyone else have a problem with a shield not being useful against some touch attacks? I can understand something like a ray spell or Ghoul Touch. The energy transfers through the shield and still gets you. a thrown splash weapon or Acid Splash spell, though. I'm thinking of allowing a shield to be used against those types as long as the attack comes from where the shield is coming from.
Any thoughts?


Quote:
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Some creatures have the ability to make incorporeal touch attacks. These attacks bypass solid objects, such as armor and shields, by passing through them. Incorporeal touch attacks work similarly to normal touch attacks except that they also ignore cover bonuses. Incorporeal touch attacks do not ignore armor bonuses granted by force effects, such as mage armor and bracers of armor.


I know the rule.
I was suggesting an alteration to the rule and asking if anyone else had a problem with it.


I do not have a problem with the touch attack rules, but if you don't like it my first thought is that there is no facing in Pathfinder, so you'd have to add rules for which way the shield is facing.
Also splash weapons and acid splash aren't the most game changing effects that I'f want to rewrite the rules for them or make them weaker than they are.


I could easily see a feat that allowed it vs touch attacks. Or at least touch melee ones.


Cavall wrote:
I could easily see a feat that allowed it vs touch attacks. Or at least touch melee ones.

Path of War has that one for you


A simple way to handle shields is to have their AC bonus be split into two types, Shield bonus and Dodge bonus. That way each facet works with the existing armor conventions. Against Flat-Footed you lose the dodge portion but not the shield portion, and against armor nullifying attacks you lose the shield portion but not the dodge portion.


I might just use common sense when confronted with those situations. If the fighter has his shield ready and somebody throws an acid flask at him, he'll get his shield bonus and if there's a sorcerer behind him that shoots him with acid splash, he won't get the shield bonus.

Anybody make a magic shield that allows it to be used against touch attacks? That could look pretty cool when it can block a Ray of Enfeeblement.


vs spells/SLAs

vs rays

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield bonus when flat-footed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.