If You Are Flat-Footed, Do You Lose any Shield Bonus?

[Evil Genius Prime]

Arguing imaginary combat is like arguing with imaginary friends. Its pointless.

[KenderKin]

wraithstrike wrote:

Dork Lord wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

Dork Lord wrote:

I have to admit, I've been swayed. Not by the "it's RAW so suck it up" or "don't be a dick" folks, though (those kinds of attitudes make me want to dig in my heels and keep to my original beliefs even more, incidentally. *hint hint*).

If they are right then they are right. It won't affect their games. I am not advocating a poster hurling insults because they are right, but I am also against ignoring the truth just because the person that was right was a jerk.

ps:I dont think anyone was calling you a name. The point was that it was a bad decision, even if it could have been worded better.

I never said anyone called me a name.... just that those who tried making their points brusquely didn't help their cause any, at least with me. Even on the internet it pays to be nice sometimes.

I did not remember who the dick comment was in reply to, but I see how it could have been seen as an insult. I agree that civilty goes a long way, and I have extended debates just to annoy the jerk in question.

Well I am relieved for once that I am not the dick in question.....

[Fairyfart Twinklepee]

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

Its pointless.

Yeah, gotta round those sharp corners. They hurt! :P

[PathfinderEspañol]

Another thing about shields is grappling.

If I'm grappled I can't use a two-handled weapon or TWF because I can only do actions that require one hand.
However I don't loose the shield bonus because using the shield isn't an action, altough it would make sense to loose the shield bonus if someone is grappling my shield.

[Evil Genius Prime]

Fairyfart Twinklepee wrote:

Evil Genius Prime wrote:

Its pointless.

Yeah, gotta round those sharp corners. They hurt! :P

Good one! LOL!!!

[The Killer Nacho]

Eherm... purely from a RAW standpoint, you keep your shield bonus while flat-footed.

If you do anything else, just recognize its a house-rule. If this is how you want to play it, you may play it that way. But it has no basis in RAW. And your players may despise you for it.

[Kalyth]

Just tacking on my 2 copper.

A small shield when strapped to the arm and held tight against the body (no moving required) covers a good portion of your torso. A large shield would cover your torso and much more. That alone would limit an opponents availible vulnerable spots in which to direct attacks.

When using a shield typically you do not swing the shield around trying to parry attacks with it. You hould the shield to cover your torso. At most you slide the shield up to cover the head and slide it down alittle to cover your legs as the opponent directs attacks to those areas. Or you shift or pivot your entire body to interpose the shield. For the most part the shield is just held tight to the body covering the torso. If you swing your should out to "parry" all you are doing is exposing yourself.

[Blake Duffey]

Ambrus wrote:

But consider that, even if not actively maneuvered around, a shield strapped to one's arm still covers a significant portion of its wielders body behind a barrier of reinforced wood or metal.

Consider me a +1 on the above.

I don't argue with house rules - your game, your rules.

But I agree with the logic that if you lose this bonus when flat footed, you should also lose it during other times (when flanked, when grappled, etc.) By this logic, the shield only really protects whatever position where it can be moved to intervene attacks.

[Kirth Gersen]

Losing shield bonuses while flat-footed works in my housreules because of the myriad advantages shield users can get through feats and class features: DR, bonus to touch AC, bonus to reflex saves, double benefit from Combat Expertise, stacking benefit from Armor Training, deflect rays, etc., etc. Those benefits are available so that shields are primarily defensive, rather than being the new default TWF choice (as they are in the core rules) -- and so that they're viable compared to TWF and THF. Then, as a minor concession, having shields not apply to flat-footed AC is a way to re-install some semblance of vulnerability to them.

So the overall gist of the comments here is important: never mind "realism," but from a game standpoint, when making any houserules ones needs to stay aware of the trickle-down effects on other rules.

[Cold Napalm]

Kalyth wrote:

Just tacking on my 2 copper.

A small shield when strapped to the arm and held tight against the body (no moving required) covers a good portion of your torso. A large shield would cover your torso and much more. That alone would limit an opponents availible vulnerable spots in which to direct attacks.

When using a shield typically you do not swing the shield around trying to parry attacks with it. You hould the shield to cover your torso. At most you slide the shield up to cover the head and slide it down alittle to cover your legs as the opponent directs attacks to those areas. Or you shift or pivot your entire body to interpose the shield. For the most part the shield is just held tight to the body covering the torso. If you swing your should out to "parry" all you are doing is exposing yourself.

That depends on the shield type and armor worn. Smaller shields while unarmored was used mostly to cover your sword arm and hands while attacking...although sometimes you would parry to meet an oncoming sword. Large shield while armor would have been held more static in formation.