Nothing happened to it. It is in Adventurer's Armory, and will probably appear again in Ultimate Equipment.
I never really liked things like this, that removed the need for holding torches without changing anything else.
A shield sconce should dramatically change the area illuminated by a torch. You can see 180 degrees in front just fine, but behind would be completely dark.
Iuon torches shouldn't work. Having a light source just a few inches from your face should hamper your vision.
Casting Continual Flame on your hat wouldn't illuminate the area directly in front of or behind you very well, and if you aren't the tallest person in the party, it won't illuminate anything very well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to play a game where I have to track the immediate, adjacent shadows from my light source and reduce the effective light in those areas.
I don't want to play a game where holding my torch high mean my body casts a shadow on my feet, and therefore to see well at my feet I need to spend an action moving my torch closer to my feet. (And if moving the torch closer to my feet isn't an action, then why bother including it in the rules?)
I don't want to play a game where I have to track the immediate, adjacent shadows from my light source and reduce the effective light in those areas.
I don't want to play a game where holding my torch high mean my body casts a shadow on my feet, and therefore to see well at my feet I need to spend an action moving my torch closer to my feet. (And if moving the torch closer to my feet isn't an action, then why bother including it in the rules?)
Damn, I just got told.
In my defense, if you hold a torch in your hand (where it's supposed to go), you don't have to worry about any of that since you can just hold the torch where you need it.
Really, I don't want to play a game like that either. My solution is just to say "Of course you need to hold a torch in you hand." Rather than just hand waving hands free torches. If I wanted to do that, I could say torches just float magically above your head and, to me, it would make about as much sense.
In my defense, if you hold a torch in your hand (where it's supposed to go), you don't have to worry about any of that since you can just hold the torch where you need it.
Really, I don't want to play a game like that either. My solution is just to say "Of course you need to hold a torch in you hand." Rather than just hand waving hands free torches. If I wanted to do that, I could say torches just float magically above your head and, to me, it would make about as much sense.
I have to agree with this. The whole idea of the shield sconce is kind of silly, from both a real-world and game perspective. As a game item, you are charging an absolutely trivial amount to allow characters to carry a torch while using a shield, rather than requiring a choice between the two. From a real-world perspective, the item wouldn't really work in the way proposed. This isn't a reason to hand wave the problems, it is a reason not to create the item in the first place.
This is honestly an issue with a lot of AA equipment. For example, you can comfortably carry a greatsword on a weapon cord, but not a wand (because that might be too good). It also trivializes the disarm maneuver, which has enough troubles as it is. Similarly, putting on a masterwork backpack on lets you carry your armor more easily (a fairly common occurrence for 10-12 Strength characters). Carrying capacity is one of the few reasons for some characters not to tank their strength, and the item lets them get around it easily. Since they don't make sense in the real world, and remove interesting choices from the game world, I don't see any reason they need to exist in the first place.
Except some people like to play in games where the paranoid, ultra-prepared level of adventuring is an advantage--or necessary for survival.
Does the game need a dozen different kind of swords? No. But it's important to some people to be able to pick a 1d8/20/x3 weapon instead of a 1d8/19-20/x2 weapon.
Why should a shield sconce not work in real life?
You can fix a torch to a wall and that works, you can hold a torch in your hand, why should it not work to fix the torch to the shield like you would to the wall? Sure, you might have to add a screw or something so it can't fall out but so be it.
In some situations I think it would work better than having a torch in your hand, because you can hold the shield so that the torch doesn't blind you.
The only drawback I see is that attacks you deflect with the shield could hit and destroy the torch.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to flame, I really don't see a reason why it should not work.
If you do tell us, perhaps we're overlooking something.
Why should a shield sconce not work in real life?
A sconce on a wall would no illuminate the room behind the wall, a sconce on a shield would not illuminate the room behind the shield.
But that's easily fixed by changing the area that's illuminated, not unlike a bullseye lantern.
But a shield sconce would only work if your at the front of the column.
Try it at home. Get a flashlight, hold it at chest level, and navigate a darkened room. Pretty easy, right. Now stand directly behind your buddy. Most of the light is hitting your buddie's back.
Same deal with the shield sconce. Since you can't hold the torch above the party's heads, now where the other party members are in relation to you makes a difference. No one wants to deal with that in a game, so your party no longer casts shadows. With respect to that torch, I mean. The still cast shadows normally from other sources. Actually, they still cast shadows from the torch, but they're incidental shadows that don't interfere with the illumination levels. Oh, and nobody thinks it odd that this torch doesn't cast shadows properly, that's how torches work in game.
I'm all for verisimilitude in the name of simplification of rules, but this is a lot of suspension of disbelief for what amounts to a torch that doesn't use a hand.
Quantum Steve, realism in D&D was thrown out with Basic D&D. Honestly, if you want to try for realism why are slings 1d4 damage and a range increment of 50feet when historically a sling could outdamage an arrow and go farther? (There was a huge thread on this on the WoTC boards a number of years back.)
D&D violates 'realism' a thousand ways, how light is used is just one of them. Personally, I would rather play a game that did not make every little thing (like light) an issue due to realism.
- Gauss
Quantum Steve, realism in D&D was thrown out with Basic D&D. Honestly, if you want to try for realism why are slings 1d4 damage and a range increment of 50feet when historically a sling could outdamage an arrow and go farther? (There was a huge thread on this on the WoTC boards a number of years back.)
D&D violates 'realism' a thousand ways, how light is used is just one of them. Personally, I would rather play a game that did not make every little thing (like light) an issue due to realism.
- Gauss
I never said anything about realism.
I did mention verisimilitude which is still part of D&D. You still carry a torch into dungeons, there are still rules for light and illumination. The game does attempt to maintain the appearance of realism despite not always being realistic.
The way light is handled in the CRB works just fine, the way most things work in the CRB I like just fine.
Some things, though, like this shield sconce, are just excuses for minor mechanical benefits, which add less to the game than they're worth. Why add even more hand waving for so little gain?
Quantum Steve, realism in D&D was thrown out with Basic D&D. Honestly, if you want to try for realism why are slings 1d4 damage and a range increment of 50feet when historically a sling could outdamage an arrow and go farther? (There was a huge thread on this on the WoTC boards a number of years back.)
I've never heard of an elephant killed by a rock thrown with a sling.
Except some people like to play in games where the paranoid, ultra-prepared level of adventuring is an advantage--or necessary for survival.
The thing is, I am certain that an ultra-prepared adventuring party would also like a ten-foot pole sticking out in front of a shield to trigger traps with. However, that item would also be silly, not really work, partially trivialize a certain type of trapfinding, and be an absolute given for use over a regular ten-foot pole that might require someone to put down their weapon.
Does the game need a dozen different kind of swords? No. But it's important to some people to be able to pick a 1d8/20/x3 weapon instead of a 1d8/19-20/x2 weapon.
I really don't get this comparison. The game has a dozen different swords because they have different statistics, are different historical items, or both. This comparison would explain why their are different types of lanterns in the game, but I don't see how it relates to the item in question.
The shield sconce is weird. If you used the shield as a shield, it should be damaged or destroyed. When exploring it would not work terribly well, for the reasons that Quantum Steve talked about. In a fight, moving it to block blows and having an enemy directly in front of you, would make it even worse. This is all handwaved to avoid overcomplication, but that doesn't address the original issue of "why does it exist in the first place?" It isn't like it is ruining the game, or even something I ever would have thought to mention if there wasn't a thread about it, but every time I see things like this I can't help but roll my eyes a bit.
Quantum Steve, realism in D&D was thrown out with Basic D&D. Honestly, if you want to try for realism why are slings 1d4 damage and a range increment of 50feet when historically a sling could outdamage an arrow and go farther? (There was a huge thread on this on the WoTC boards a number of years back.)
A sling deals 1d4 damage because that is what it has always done. It is also for balance, being a simple weapon that directly adds Strength. Additionally, bows are the standard "heroic" ranged weapon of the genre, giving them a bit of special privilege. It might not be completely historically accurate, but it is an item that existed that has stats designed to make it work well within the confines of the game.
The shield sconce really has none of these reasons to exist. Unlike a candle helmet, I can't see anything indicating it was a real thing. Also unlike a candle helmet, which requires the tradeoff of using a weak light source for having free hands, there is really no reason to not stick them on every shield one picks up. Even if light is not an issue, it gives you a way to constantly carry a lit torch for use as a weapon or fire source. It encourages players to use a weird item to get extra benefit, while not creating any interesting choices or tradeoffs for it. It is the weirdness in terms of realism AND the game that makes me have a (looking back at the amount I have typed about it, ridiculously inordinate) issue with the sconce.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But a shield sconce would only work if your at the front of the column.
Try it at home. Get a flashlight, hold it at chest level, and navigate a darkened room. Pretty easy, right. Now stand directly behind your buddy. Most of the light is hitting your buddie's back.
So are you saying we need rules about how party members block your light, so a torch only provides normal light into unobstructed squares, and some lesser amount of light into obstructed squares? With rules that say a halfling standing in front of a torch-bearing human blocks less light than a dwarf standing in front of a torch-bearing human?
Since you can't hold the torch above the party's heads
Earlier, I said
and you said
So why can I hold a torch in my hand and "hold it where I need it," but I can't attach a torch to my shield, which is an object I hold with my hand, and hold the shield (and therefore the torch) where I need it?
There aren't rules in the game for how long you can hold a torch before your arm gets tired.
Nor are there rules for how long you can hold a torch in your hand with your arm raised high before your arm gets tired.
Nor are there rules for how long you can hold your shield at chest level in a defensive pose before your arm gets tired.
Nor are there rules for how long you could hold your shield above your head before your arm gets tired.
Nor are there rules for what kind of action it is to switch your arm from down to horizontal to up.
Or what kind of action it is to look around in all directions so you can make Perception checks against creatures in any direction (the game has no facing).
So, lacking those rules, it isn't an action to move your torch or shield-torch anywhere within your reach, so you can defend or illuminate as needed, despite movable light-blocking obstacles such as your other party members (who are standing approximately 5 feet away from you, not "directly in front of you").
So unless you're willing to introduce rules that tell players how much they can move their torch arm or shield arm in the course of a round ("sorry, John, you only get your shield bonus against two attackers this round"), you're already accepting that the shadows caused by other creatures blocking your torch's light are irrelevant, and therefore your "suspension of disbelief" for this part of the game is already high, and you're comfortable with that.
The thing is, I am certain that an ultra-prepared adventuring party would also like a ten-foot pole sticking out in front of a shield to trigger traps with. However, that item would also be silly,
Some people think gnomes are silly. Some people think hideous laughter and uncontrollable dance are silly. Why should they get to decide these things aren't allowed in your game?
not really work, partially trivialize a certain type of trapfinding,
1) You're assuming that "triggering a trap 10 feet farther than normal" is equal to "disabling a trap with Disable Device." Adventurers who make that same assumption are likely to die. Who's silly now?
2) This tactic can either "not really work" OR "partially trivialize a certain type of trapfinding." It either works, or it doesn't. If it doesn't work, then who cares if the PCs try it? A bag of rats won't repel a vampire, but that doesn't mean we need to disallow PCs trying to fend off vampires using a bag of rats. And if it does work, see point (1).
and be an absolute given for use over a regular ten-foot pole that might require someone to put down their weapon.
So you think probing with a shield-pole should be just as effective as probing with a hand-held pole? That there shouldn't be any sort of check penalty for using a shield-pole instead of a hand-held pole?
Unlike a candle helmet, I can't see anything indicating it was a real thing.
So? Antitoxin, sunrods, tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, ring mail, elves...
Also unlike a candle helmet, which requires the tradeoff of using a weak light source for having free hands, there is really no reason to not stick them on every shield one picks up.
So?
Even if light is not an issue, it gives you a way to constantly carry a lit torch for use as a weapon or fire source.
So? Is a torch really such an effective weapon that you should be forced to choose between having a torch ready or a sword ready?
It encourages players to use a weird item to get extra benefit
"Weird item" is a relative term. Bows used to be "weird items." Iron weapons used to be "weird items." Armor used to be a "weird item." A fork used to be a "weird item." Why punish players who are trying to be creative with the materials they have on-hand? How is a shield sconce more gamebreaking than the party sorcerer casting light on the fighter's shield as often as needed?
I really don't get this comparison. The game has a dozen different swords because they have different statistics, are different historical items, or both.
There are many, many named weapon types in the game that, in the real world, are synonymous. Longsword, bastard sword, broad sword, greatsword, there's not much difference in the real world, and the real world descriptions of them overlap significantly. The game classifies and mis-classifies them (why does a 1E broadsword deal different damage than a longsword when the only difference is that a broadsword has a basket hilt?) and has done so since the beginning because gamers are sword nerds and like to have a zillion options, but that's just self-serving nerdery. It's begging the question: the game has a dozen different names for similar swords because the game swords have different statistics because the designers assigned a different statistic to the different names for similar swords.
The game's definitions of mace, flail, and morningstar don't follow the naming conventions of actual medieval weapons of these types (and there's overlap and discrepancy there, too).
Does the game benefit from having a (simple) heavy mace 1d8/x2/B and a (martial) flail 1d8/x2/B? Maybe. Marginally.
Does the game benefit from having one 1H martial weapon be 1d8/20/x3 and another be 1d8/19-20/x2 when there's almost no mathematical difference between them? Maybe. Marginally.
But they're both in the game. Because it's important to some people that they have a weapon that crits less often, but crits for more, and to some people that they have a weapon that crits more often, but crits for less.
Just as it's important to some people that they have a simple item that lets them attach a torch to a shield so they can hold a weapon or holy symbol in the other hand, so they don't have to drop a held torch and spend an action drawing a weapon.
Just because you don't see the utility of an item or think it's important doesn't mean that some other player won't want one. The game as a whole is bigger than you and your conception of what is silly, trivial, effective, appropriate, useful, or important.
The search for verisimilitude should and does end at the limits of playability. I'm totally with SKR on this one as the design principles are sound.
SKR couldn't have said it any better. This is why D&D have slings the way they are. They makers probably wanted a simple weapon that 'kids grow up using' rather than the weapon of extreme skill (to have accuracy) that used to beat out a bow on a battlefield (where accuracy didn't matter). Bows had their advantages, multiple ranks of troops (firing over the ranks in front) was a major one. Slings were less subject to weather than were bows. But damage? A sling bullet does ALOT of damage.
A nice description of slings vs bows
- Gauss
So are you saying we need rules about how party members block your light, so a torch only provides normal light into unobstructed squares, and some lesser amount of light into obstructed squares? With rules that say a halfling standing in front of a torch-bearing human blocks less light than a dwarf standing in front of a torch-bearing human?But a shield sconce would only work if your at the front of the column.
Try it at home. Get a flashlight, hold it at chest level, and navigate a darkened room. Pretty easy, right. Now stand directly behind your buddy. Most of the light is hitting your buddie's back.
No, I'm saying the game doesn't need items that do little else than break verisimilitude.
What's so important about being able to carry a torch on your shield there needs to be completely unrealistic items.
Does the game benefit from having a (simple) heavy mace 1d8/x2/B and a (martial) flail 1d8/x2/B? Maybe. Marginally.
Does the game benefit from having one 1H martial weapon be 1d8/20/x3 and another be 1d8/19-20/x2 when there's almost no mathematical difference between them? Maybe. Marginally.
Does the game benefit from not having these items? Not at all. Whether or not they help the game, they certainly don't hurt it so the comparison isn't really apt.
It's not just about whether an item or an idea helps the game, it's whether the item helps the game more than it hurts it. Verisimilitude is important to all of us. Pathfinder rules developers strive for a system that's realistic as possible while still being playable. If you don't then it's a mighty huge coincidence that the PF rules have struck such an excellent balance.
If a player asked if his character could tie a burning torch to his wrist a let it hang there to free up his hand, I think a reasonable GM would say, "Of course not, You'd set yourself on fire."
There aren't any rules for accidentally setting yourself of fire with a torch.
There doesn't need to be any rules for accidentally setting yourself on fire with a torch.
But isn't it reasonable to want to avoid trouble spots by saying no to ideas that don't make sense?
So why can I hold a torch in my hand and "hold it where I need it," but I can't attach a torch to my shield, which is an object I hold with my hand, and hold the shield (and therefore the torch) where I need it?
Because the shield is strapped to your arm and has a much smaller range of motion. Plus, there already is a rule for doing a particular thing with a shield other than defend yourself. It's not a stretch to say you need to hold your shield in a defensible manner to gain AC. That is, you must use it as a shield, not a weapon or a torch.
Speaking of using your shield as a weapon, someone actually thought, "It doesn't really make sense that you should be able to defend yourself just as well while attacking with a shield." So they made a rule for it.
It's not a big deal balance-wise, shield bashing is a pretty sub-standard form of attack in most situations. It certainly didn't need the nerf. Letting players keep their shield bonus wouldn't have hurt the game any more than letting players carry torches without hands. The game just likes verisimilitude, and the shield bash suffered as a result, and that's OK because not all weapons have to be equally good.
[I]t's important to some people that they have a simple item that lets them attach a torch to a shield so they can hold a weapon or holy symbol in the other hand, so they don't have to drop a held torch and spend an action drawing a weapon.
I don't think that's a good enough reason to include items in the game that not only strain verisimilitude, but also change the way the game is played for a trivial cost.
I'd like to have a breast plate that didn't reduce your speed, but I don't think such an item should be introduced lightly, and I think it should cost more than 5gp.
No, I'm saying the game doesn't need items that do little else than break verisimilitude.
Well, your definition of verisimilitude. Apparently thunderstones and sunrods are a-ok, though.
What's so important about being able to carry a torch on your shield there needs to be completely unrealistic items.
Again, using your definition of completely unrealistic.
Does the game benefit from not having these items? Not at all. Whether or not they help the game, they certainly don't hurt it so the comparison isn't really apt.
Again, using your definition of "hurt the game."
But isn't it reasonable to want to avoid trouble spots by saying no to ideas that don't make sense?
Using your definition of "don't make sense."
Because the shield is strapped to your arm and has a much smaller range of motion.
A shield strapped to your arm has the same range of motion as your arm.
It's not a stretch to say you need to hold your shield in a defensible manner to gain AC.
Other than the rules saying, "you have to be using an item appropriately to gain its benefits," there's nothing in the rules that say you have to hold it high or low. You just have to wear it on your arm (instead of, say, in your backpack or strapped to your back).
In fact, the whole point of a shield (rather than a fixed piece of armor) is that you can move it around. Hold it low to defend against a goblin. Hold it high to defend against a hill giant. Or hold it at chest level to defend against an orc.
I'd like to have a breast plate that didn't reduce your speed, but I don't think such an item should be introduced lightly, and I think it should cost more than 5gp.
You mean like mithral breastplate?
"I want a light on my shield so I don't have to carry a torch" is no more historically unrealistic than "I want a sword built into a gauntlet so my hand is protected and I can't be disarmed." And in terms of game effects, a shield sconce isn't any different than having the party bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard cast light on the fighter's shield in between combats.
(I'd also like to point out that the lantern shield also included a spiked gauntlet and had a big spike on it like a spiked shield. How completely ridiculous and unrealistic!)
No, I'm saying the game doesn't need items that do little else than break verisimilitude.Well, your definition of verisimilitude. Apparently thunderstones and sunrods are a-ok, though.
Yes. Because they are consistent within the game world. I don't have to hand wave physics. For the record, I'd be just fine with a magic light source that doesn't not cast any shadows.
What's so important about being able to carry a torch on your shield there needs to be completely unrealistic items.Again, using your definition of completely unrealistic.
The sconce itself isn't unrealistic, the way it works in the game is. And trying to make new rules to make them work realistically is even more unrealistic.
Does the game benefit from not having these items? Not at all. Whether or not they help the game, they certainly don't hurt it so the comparison isn't really apt.Again, using your definition of "hurt the game."
Well, yeah, everything's subjective. Do you think having flails and morning stars hurts the game?
But isn't it reasonable to want to avoid trouble spots by saying no to ideas that don't make sense?Using your definition of "don't make sense."
Once again, subjective. Are you actually arguing that shield sconce make sense the way they work? Here I thought your argument was the break in verisimilitude is worth the clever item.
Because the shield is strapped to your arm and has a much smaller range of motion.A shield strapped to your arm has the same range of motion as your arm.
Scratch you back with a shield on.
It's not a stretch to say you need to hold your shield in a defensible manner to gain AC.Other than the rules saying, "you have to be using an item appropriately to gain its benefits," there's nothing in the rules that say you have to hold it high or low. You just have to wear it on your arm (instead of, say, in your backpack or strapped to your back).
In fact, the whole point of a shield (rather than a fixed piece of armor) is that you can move it around. Hold it low to defend against a goblin. Hold it high to defend against a hill giant. Or hold it at chest level to defend against an orc.
holding it strait above your head, similar to how you would carry a torch wouldn't protect you from anything.
I'd like to have a breast plate that didn't reduce your speed, but I don't think such an item should be introduced lightly, and I think it should cost more than 5gp.You mean like mithral breastplate?
Yeah, didn't think that one all the way through. Though Mithraling a Breastplate costs a bit more than 5 gp.
In terms of game effects, a shield sconce isn't any different than having the party bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard cast light on the fighter's shield in between combats.
No it's really not any different. But since emanations like light need line of effect, and solid objects like a shield can block line of effect, things would get weird.
Personally, I'd just request the party bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard cast light on the fighter's sword instead, since he can hold that just like a torch and still attack with it and I wouldn't have to make any silly judgment calls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm not going to make any headway with you because you're insisting on a realistic interpretation of light and shadows, and I want to play a game where taking a turn doesn't require a protractor and light meter. So... I'm done here.
Have fun!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bag of rats won't repel a vampire, but that doesn't mean we need to disallow PCs trying to fend off vampires using a bag of rats. And if it does work, see point (1).
Ooh, I so want a bag of rats now! :D