Doesn't that make more sense, since moving your shield in the way of an incoming attack is an active defense, not a passive one?
If someone trying to touch you to lay a spell effect on you touches your shield, you can still reasonably say they "touched" you, I think.
Would you let someone with a touch spell wait until you hit them with your sword and say the same? My shield is a carried object, not me. Armor I can buy as being "me" but not a shield, IMHO.
Even while flat footed, you could be standing on a defensive position with the shield set to block.
It's still a big piece of metal or wood they have to bypass, even if you're standing still.
Nemal wrote: If someone trying to touch you to lay a spell effect on you touches your shield, you can still reasonably say they "touched" you, I think. I don't, unless it is maybe shocking grasp or something.
I don't get the difference between touching a person's shield and touching the thing they are standing on. The level of contact from skin to skin is equal (none).
Yes thats the reasoning behind it. If they want to cause damage, then they have to get past your shield and armor, and either hit an unprotected spot, or hit you well enough that the armor doesn't really stop the blow.
For touch attacks, its enough that they touch you, and your armor doesn't stop it. And along that logic, neither does the shield as it's still in contact with you.
cranewings wrote: I don't get the difference between touching a person's shield and touching the thing they are standing on. The level of contact from skin to skin is equal (none). Magic is not electricity.
It operates on a completely different set of natural laws.
In those laws "ground" or "floor" is a different entity than "person and everything he holds"
Flat-footed doesn't necessarily mean you're unaware, it just means you haven't started moving your feat yet so you aren't ready to dodge or roll with the punch. Active and passive defense doesn't enter into it at all. As far as touch spells go, whether they're hitting your shield or your armor, it's something that has a direct route to your body.
Quatar wrote: Yes thats the reasoning behind it. If they want to cause damage, then they have to get past your shield and armor, and either hit an unprotected spot, or hit you well enough that the armor doesn't really stop the blow.
For touch attacks, its enough that they touch you, and your armor doesn't stop it. And along that logic, neither does the shield as it's still in contact with you.
What if you are standing on a bench and I touch the bench?
If not, is it because there is a boot in between you and the bench? If so, why doesn't the glove between you and the shield block it?
Is it because the bench is larger than a shield? What about a giant holding a shield then? A giant's shield is bigger than a bench.
Is it the ration of material to the ration of the person's size? So a man standing on a large bench different than a giant holding a large shield, because the giant is bigger? What about a large man standing on a small bench?
What if he is barefoot?
Does the shield count as part of you because the wielder is actively trying to defend with it? What if I kick the bench first and the guy standing on it acknowledges that the bench blocked my attack?
Fleshgrinder wrote: Even while flat footed, you could be standing on a defensive position with the shield set to block. I disagree, I would say that FF is completely unready for an attack.
And I stand by my assertion that armor is worn and a shield is carried. That's a important distinction to me. Behind every inch of your armor is your body, the same can not be said for a shield.
Logic arguments aside, does anyone see a balance issue here? I'm thinking it'd be a nice way to bring Touch ACs up, which are woefully lacking IMHO.
CrackedOzy wrote: Fleshgrinder wrote: Even while flat footed, you could be standing on a defensive position with the shield set to block. I disagree, I would say that FF is completely unready for an attack.
And I stand by my assertion that armor is worn and a shield is carried. That's a important distinction to me. Behind every inch of your armor is your body, the same can not be said for a shield.
Logic arguments aside, does anyone see a balance issue here? I'm thinking it'd be a nice way to bring Touch ACs up, which are woefully lacking IMHO. I actually already use this house rule. Raising touch AC does nothing to balance except inhibit the wizard, which is the best class anyway.
Kazaan wrote: Flat-footed doesn't necessarily mean you're unaware, it just means you haven't started moving your feat yet so you aren't ready to dodge or roll with the punch. Active and passive defense doesn't enter into it at all. The book definition of FF disagrees.
CRB wrote: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation.
cranewings wrote: Raising touch AC does nothing to balance except inhibit the wizard, which is the best class anyway. And the sorcerer, witch, magus, gunslinger, and anyone else who can make touch attacks.
cranewings wrote: I actually already use this house rule. How has this worked out for you?
The Gunslinger ends up hitting on a 1 by level 6 against almost everything that isn't a ninja. My gunslinger player got excited if he actually needed a 5 or something to hit so that their was a point to rolling the dice.
The witch is basically as good as the wizard. The magus... eh... I'm up in the air on them. I don't think it is an especially strong class. To each their own with it.
____________________
The rule works fine. Players like it because it helps make the shield mean a little more. It fits in with the natural idea that, "I hold a shield so that things can't touch me." Gunslingers like it because it makes their turn more interesting (hitting on a 5 instead of a 1). I've never once had a complaint and I have some really, really argumentative players from both the power gaming and story telling camps.
CrackedOzy wrote: Would you let someone with a touch spell wait until you hit them with your sword and say the same? My shield is a carried object, not me. Armor I can buy as being "me" but not a shield, IMHO. Well... no, unless the guy with the sword made a called shot to target specifically the hand in which a caster is holding the charge of a Touch spell.
cranewings wrote: I don't get the difference between touching a person's shield and touching the thing they are standing on. The level of contact from skin to skin is equal (none). Skin contact is not needed- otherwise, even regular clothes would make it nigh impossible to land a touch attack.
The game makes a difference between objects that a person is carrying and objects that they aren't.
A good rule of thumb is: if you cast Invisibility on the subject, does the item become invisible?
Sword carried: Yes
Shield worn: Yes
Headband: Yes
Bench he's sitting on: No
Floor he's standing on: No
You get the idea. If it becomes invisible with Invisibility, it's fair game to touch to deliver a Touch spell, and therefore provides no bonus to Touch AC.
Nemal wrote: cranewings wrote: I don't get the difference between touching a person's shield and touching the thing they are standing on. The level of contact from skin to skin is equal (none). Skin contact is not needed- otherwise, even regular clothes would make it nigh impossible to land a touch attack.
The game makes a difference between objects that a person is carrying and objects that they aren't.
A good rule of thumb is: if you cast Invisibility on the subject, does the item become invisible?
Sword carried: Yes
Shield worn: Yes
Headband: Yes
Bench he's sitting on: No
Floor he's standing on: No
You get the idea. If it becomes invisible with Invisibility, it's fair game to touch to deliver a Touch spell, and therefore provides no bonus to Touch AC. Fair enough. A better way of how I think a shield should be handled is making it more like SR. SR blocks spells unless the wielder wants the spell to hit him.
The shield blocks spells unless the wielder relaxes his mind and stops thinking of the shield as a shield.
There is still a difference between a spell like invisibility and a spell like evil touch. Evil touch requires a touch. A shield shouldn't stop invisibility anymore than it should stop Hold Person.
cranewings wrote: Fair enough. A better way of how I think a shield should be handled is making it more like SR. SR blocks spells unless the wielder wants the spell to hit him.
The shield blocks spells unless the wielder relaxes his mind and stops thinking of the shield as a shield.
There is still a difference between a spell like invisibility and a spell like evil touch. Evil touch requires a touch. A shield shouldn't stop invisibility anymore than it should stop Hold Person.
That's pretty reasonable, I suppose.
I find that touch AC is used little enough in the game that I feel no real need to buff it, especially not for Fighters, who get enough free stuff as it is (whereas Rogues, comparatively, would end up with poor touch AC), but I feel that's rather a problem with shield AC bonuses being terribly balanced than the underlying concept.
It should work well enough at low level.
Thematically, I find it weird that you'd be able to block a curse with a shield, or that a petrifying touch would work if it touches your metal plate but not your metal shield, but, eh, whatever works for you and your group. :)
cranewings wrote: Fair enough. A better way of how I think a shield should be handled is making it more like SR. SR blocks spells unless the wielder wants the spell to hit him.
The shield blocks spells unless the wielder relaxes his mind and stops thinking of the shield as a shield.
There is still a difference between a spell like invisibility and a spell like evil touch. Evil touch requires a touch. A shield shouldn't stop invisibility anymore than it should stop Hold Person.
Err... Can I relax my mind and have all my equipment count for touch AC? What is the touch AC bonus of a a burka? :p
It's a reasonable houserule, and it also gives a little boost to warrior-types and prevents touch AC from being a key weakness. It may be more realistic to limit it to blocking spells that can also affect objects, with the possible addition of allowing the spell to damage the shield based on to-hit/AC comparison.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
