We've all heard the common complaints about shields, useless, crippled DPR, yadda yadda. Here are some possible fixes. Keep in mind that not all of these are meant to be implemented at once, so please don't complain about "OMG BONUS TO REF AND FORT SO OP >=("
1. Add shield bonus to Reflex saves.
2. Double all inherent shield bonuses.
3. Bucklers add another +1 to AC if you are not being flanked.
4. Non-Buckler shields add another +1 to AC if flanked.
5. Add all/half shield bonus to touch AC.
6. Add shield bonus to number of Attacks of Opportunity per round.
Any/All/Some of these sound good?
I think 1 and 5 look ok, but I don't personally think any of them are needed.
I myself play a sword and board fighter in a current campaign (no twf or shield bashing just straight shield for AC), and I don't think shields need any help at all.
|
We've all heard the common complaints about shields, useless, crippled DPR, yadda yadda. Here are some possible fixes. Keep in mind that not all of these are meant to be implemented at once, so please don't complain about "OMG BONUS TO REF AND FORT SO OP >=("
This is the first I've seen anyone complain about shields on these boards. I personally don't think any changes are needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly people don't complain anymore because, as near as I can tell, 90% of the shield users are using two-weapon fighting (TWF) and a pair of shields in lieu of a shield and a weapon, in order to take advantage of the silly "no TWF penalty" feat in Pathfinder that's specific for shields. For everyone else, using a two-handed weapon and an animated shield seems to be the way to go.
You can play a straight sword-and-board character in a medium- to low-optimization game and have plenty of fun with it; the only time shields need a boost is when you're in a high-intensity meat-grinder campaign and an animated shield isn't available.
|
We've all heard the common complaints about shields, useless, crippled DPR, yadda yadda. Here are some possible fixes. Keep in mind that not all of these are meant to be implemented at once, so please don't complain about "OMG BONUS TO REF AND FORT SO OP >=("
1. Add shield bonus to Reflex saves.
Doing something similar in my update of 2nd ed AD&D. Medium shields will add a +1 bonus on all saves that are area effect/beam or breath weapon or +2 for tower shields if either is prepped with a response action. Similar to medium and heavy armors providing some small (+1) limited but static bonuses to all saves (area effect, etc).
5. Add all/half shield bonus to touch AC..
Currently add ALL shield bonus to touch attacks in my PF game (including magical +'s), would probably carry that over to my AD&D 3.
6. Add shield bonus to number of Attacks of Opportunity per round.
I don't use AoO in my homebrew PF that often because I use a time/declared action initiative system - so true AoO are rare. I'm not really getting how having a higher shield bonus increases the frequency of AoO in a round? Is it because the shield bearer can attack more without being exposed to counter attack? Not really getting the reason/mechanics behind this.
Any/All/Some of these sound good?
Wouldn't use 2, 3 or 4 (I use facing, so in some cases shields are negated unless the defender repositions the shield into play). 2 is also a bit OP, imo if taken as a part or whole due to the numeric value of Shield vs total AC bonus by suited armor (this would make some shields as good as chain, et al). 6 doesn't really make sense (as I posted above), but I would like to hear your reasoning "besides making shields better".
|
|
Mostly people don't complain anymore because, as near as I can tell, 90% of the shield users are using two-weapon fighting (TWF) and a pair of shields in lieu of a shield and a weapon, in order to take advantage of the silly "no TWF penalty" feat in Pathfinder that's specific for shields.
LOL. I wouldn't let my players try to pull that.
Whyever not? It's a confirmed real world Chinese style of combat.
Reference?
(And, to justify the way the feat's written, it would have to be historically MORE efficient than any other weapon/shield or two weapon style.)
I have a Ranger build that uses a single shield 2-handed. Not amazingly powerful, but still effective and very cool, IMO.
And what about a feat that leads you add half your Str modifier to your shield bonus to AC?
Or one that lets you add your shield bonus to touch AC as well. I honestly don't understand why that's not the case... Isn't the whole point of shields to stop things from touching you?
|
7. Shield bonus as DR vs energy attacks that have "reflex half" saves
(too complicated...)
Westbrook87,
your #5 sounds the most reasonable (though your #6 sounds intriguing...). if anything, they oughtn't provide a bonus to flat-footed AC and should apply only to regular and touch AC! or maybe this could vary with the size of the shield.
how about this paradigm:
Buckler - bonus to regular AC and touch AC
Shield - bonus to regular, touch, and flat-footed AC
Tower - bonus to regular, touch, and flat-footed AC, and Reflex saves vs magic
with a caveat that a magic ray penetrates the AC bonus of a non-magic shield?
and for #6 maybe a feat? (no DX needed):
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You may make an additional number of attacks of opportunity per round equal to your shield bonus.
Normal: You may make only one attack of opportunity per round.
While shield should (and do) make for substandard weapons, and I would love to see a mechanism that makes them useful, I don't think they should be able to receive a feat that is roughly four feats in one. IMO, the one who thought up Shield Master should be publicly spanked in front of his coworkers.
Lemmy, your build is one of the most original things I have ever seen on these forums. You deserve a mention for that. But if touch attacks are supposed to be able to go through materials with ease, then shields shouldn't do much, unless...:
Deflector Shields!
Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: You have learned to use your shield to parry blows. Your shield AC applies to touch attacks.
Rainzax, I kinda brainfarted on the flat-footed bit. I do agree with your paradigm, except that I would make all shields add to Reflex saves. After all, you either duck behind it, or raise it to deflect blows, both of which fall under "Reflex."
As for #6...I kinda imagined that with a shield, one could be less focused on provoking an attack when counterattacking, which is why you get free AoOs. After all, the existence of Combat Reflexes implies that one must have great reflexes to take advantage of an opponent's mistake without exposing yourself.
I guess I should say that a goal of mine was to improve the quality of fighting with a one-handed weapon with a shield. It's a bit unfair, I think, that one needs a dozen feats to catch up in effectiveness to other guys who just use a two-handed weapon with a floating shield.
This is why I wish to adjust a shield's base mechanics, rather than create feats or something of the like. The problem with PF shields is how killing enemies ASAP is usually more effective than stalling and chipping away at their health, which is why people go the TWF route for the DPR.
Typically, a staller fights defensively round after round with an AC of 31 or something, which is...less than effective. TWF requires a lot of Dex, and makes the fighter even more MAD. I'm trying to avoid taking away from the TWF route, while still creating benefits for those who don't want/don't have TWF.
Here is suggestion #7, intended to replace 3/4.
- Bucklers provide +2 to AC when there is only one active opponent in your threatened area. Other shields get +1 when there are multiple active enemies in your threatened area.
And #8, for the heck of it.
- Light shields do not exist. Light shields suck, are completely useless, and I have not encountered a single situation where one would use a light shield in place of a heavy shield or buckler. People who use light shields are struck by lightning every round, dealing 15d6 damage, Reflex save for half.
In a one-on-one duel, mobility is key. Armor and heft matter less*, which is why people don't wear plate armor and use broadswords in duels.
Big shields are designed to protect you while putting the bare minimum of thought into the process. Stray blows, random crossbow bolts, debris, and the like. But while in a duel, you simply don't need as much surface area to adequately protect yourself**, which is why most duelists used bucklers if they used a shield at all.
Thus, the #3/4 shield mechanics. Bucklers are lighter and just as useful as bigger shields in one-on-one fights, while bigger shields provide more fire-and-forget defense.
In other words, Bucklers are more effective than other shields in specific situations, which is why they get a total +3 bonus instead of bringing them to par with heavy shields. The other shields get +1, since that +1 will typically be more useful against multiple opponents.
*I'm not sure if people started using lighter swords, and people wore less armor to compensate, or vice-versa. Historically, changes in armor usually happened after changes in weapons.
** As well as the shield's additional weight being needless and tiring.
|
|
how about:
Buckler - provides bonus to regular AC only (non-flat/touch)
Shield - provides bonus to regular and touch AC
Tower - provides bonus to regular, touch, and flat AC
bonuses for 'fighting defensively':
Buckler - only suffer a -2 to attack, but only against a single foe
Shield - only suffer -2 to attack
Tower - double shield bonus to AC while fighting defensively
?
While shield should (and do) make for substandard weapons, and I would love to see a mechanism that makes them useful, I don't think they should be able to receive a feat that is roughly four feats in one. IMO, the one who thought up Shield Master should be publicly spanked in front of his coworkers.
I'd just remove the "no penalties to TWF" bit. This feat is pretty much obligatory if you want to make shields a viable weapon.
Lemmy, your build is one of the most original things I have ever seen on these forums. You deserve a mention for that.
Well... Thanks! I'm flattered that you think so.
But if touch attacks are supposed to be able to go through materials with ease, then shields shouldn't do much, unless...:
Huh... That makes sense. But couldn't we say shields cover a significant part of the characters body, blocking the attacker's line of sight, therefore making it harder to aim at the shielded character?
|
|
Whyever not? It's a confirmed real world Chinese style of combat.Mostly people don't complain anymore because, as near as I can tell, 90% of the shield users are using two-weapon fighting (TWF) and a pair of shields in lieu of a shield and a weapon, in order to take advantage of the silly "no TWF penalty" feat in Pathfinder that's specific for shields.LOL. I wouldn't let my players try to pull that.
No, I am not denying the possibility of there being a dual-wielded shield combat style. I have seen a demonstration of one such style on video, though I don't recall it being Chinese. I think it was African (though I could be wrong). It was interesting, but I do think it would be considered to be a form of martial arts.
What I am saying is that I would not allow a player to use the Shield Master feat to nullify two-weapon fighting penalties. I acknowledge that it is not a significant benefit/penalty, but I have found that as a GM, it is helpful to stand your ground not only on the big stuff, but the small stuff too.
Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
I don't think shields are underpowered. There's a feat that gives an extra +1 to the bonus from shields. In addition, enchanted shields can quickly improve the armor class of a shield-wielder above and beyond that of natural armor and regular armor.
I don't think shields are underpowered. There's a feat that gives an extra +1 to the bonus from shields. In addition, enchanted shields can quickly improve the armor class of a shield-wielder above and beyond that of natural armor and regular armor.
Tangent, the problem with this line of thinking is that AC, or any sort of defense, isn't worth anything compared to attack. Higher AC just extends a fight, and decreases your offensive strength, which makes the enemy live longer, and due to the systems in pathfinder, an enemy at 1 hp is just as dangerous as one with 154 hp.
Instead of allowing an enemy to let off ten attacks, which still may hit you, it is usually better to forgo defense of offense and limit them to, say, six attacks.
I hope this has been helpful.
RedDogMT: I don't quite share your sentiments at Shield Master being "small stuff." They literally become the most accurate TWF weapons in the game, save bucketloads gold on enhancing shields instead of normal weapons, and increase your AC to boot.
rainzax: Your fighting defensively-modifiers are quite intriguing, but don't they're optimal. Very few players fight defensively anyway, and I really don't want to force shield user to lower their damage output even more.
Lemmy: If we remove TWF penalties, cue the hundreds of rogues who will shred people with spiked shields with no penalty. Even if they don't have shield proficiency, getting it is essentially two weapon focuses.
As for the cover bit...not really. I suppose kite shields and tower shields might work like that, and they do under the pathfinder systems.
But most shield just won't work that way. Bucklers are TINY, not what you think when you picture a shield in your head. Try stretching your hands so your pinkie finger is as far as possible from your thumb, and then connect your thumbs. THAT is the size of a typical buckler, and as you can tell, it doesn't really cover much.
As for the larger shields? Well, what we typically picture as a shield, metal, with a triangular bottom, is a heater shield. It typically is as wide as a large human chest, and I suppose it will be hard for them to target your right arm or something. The other 70% of your body? Not so much. And if you actively attempt to use your shield as cover (maybe a fighting defensive bonus) you compromise your attack and remove any positional advantage you may have. Not to mention, they can just hit your feet while you try to cover your chest.
If you need help finding images of shields, you can trying googling for renaissance reenactments, they are pretty accurate.
I hope this has been helpful.
[
Tangent, the problem with this line of thinking is that AC, or any sort of defense, isn't worth anything compared to attack. Higher AC just extends a fight, and decreases your offensive strength, which makes the enemy live longer, and due to the systems in pathfinder, an enemy at 1 hp is just as dangerous as one with 154 hp.Instead of allowing an enemy to let off ten attacks, which still may hit you, it is usually better to forgo defense of offense and limit them to, say, six attacks.
I hope this has been helpful.
Higher AC gives you the time to kill the target. If someone is standing there and taking every hit, their offense will often be insufficient to kill the target in time. If you have a sword and board which actually went for a high AC, they can avoid the vast majority of blows and win. Yes, you do less damage, but HP are not an infinite pool on the attacker.
The difference between an AC focused build and one which blows it off can be over 10 points of AC (at mid levels).
Just do a casual DPR comparison of the two opponents beating on each other, and the high AC will rip apart the glass cannon.
It is a shibboleth of this forum that AC is considered crap and offense everything. When the rubber meets the road in actual play, I see a whole different game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to change the shield rules, I would make it so that buckles provide +1 AC, small shields +2 AC, heavy shields +3 AC, and tower shields +4 AC. That's it. Nothing more.
A heater shield such as this would probably be considered a small shield.
A large shield would be more like this
Also, shields are effective. If it was as simple as "just attack their feet", shields would not have been used for thousands of years.
With a sword? Maybe.
With a hand covered with electricity? Not so much.
Higher AC gives you the time to kill the target. If someone is standing there and taking every hit, their offense will often be insufficient to kill the target in time. If you have a sword and board which actually went for a high AC, they can avoid the vast majority of blows and win. Yes, you do less damage, but HP are not an infinite pool on the attacker.
The difference between an AC focused build and one which blows it off can be over 10 points of AC (at mid levels).
Just do a casual DPR comparison of the two opponents beating on each other, and the high AC will rip apart the glass cannon.
It is a shibboleth of this forum that AC is considered crap and offense everything. When the rubber meets the road in actual play, I see a whole different game.
Okay, two level 6 human fighters.
Fighter A has a +1 flaming greatsword, +1 full plate, a belt og G.Str, Bracers of Armor +1, 0 Dex. He has an AC of 10 + 10 (armor) + 1 (bracers) = 21 AC.
Her stats (15 point buy) are Str 17+2(racial bonus)+1(level 4 bonus)+2(Belt of G.Str (13), 10 Dex, 14 Con (5), 7 int (-4), 11 Wis (1), and 7 Cha (-4).
She has 10 (start)+5d10(class)+12(con)+6(Favored class)+6(toughness). She has 61 HP.
Her feats are Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Greatsword, Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, Toughness, Iron Will, Greater Iron Will, Improved Sunder, and Step Up.
Her attack bonus will be 6(BAB)+6(Str)+1(magic)+1(Weapon Training)+1(Weapon Focus), for a total of +15/10 to hit.
Her greatsword will deal 2d6(base)+9(Str x 1.5)+1(magic)+2(Weapon Spec)+1(Weapon Training)+1d6 fire damage, for a total of 3d6+13 damage. With power attack, she will have +13/+8 (3d6+19, 19/20 x2) damage.
Fighter B has a +2 heavy steel shield, +2 chainmail, and a +1 longsword, along with +1 bracers of armor.
His stats are: 16 Str, 17 Str, 14 Con, 7 Int, 7 Cha, 13 Wis.
He has 10(start)+5d10(class)+12(Con)+6(Favored Bonus) = 55 HP.
His AC is 10+8(armor)+5(shield)+3(Dex)+1(Dodge)+1(Bracers), for a total of 27.
His feats are Power Attack, Weapon Focus: Longsword, TWF, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Focus, Improved TWF, Weapon Specialization: Longsword, and Dodge.
His attack bonus with her longsword is 6(BAB)+3(Str)+1(magic)+1(Weapon Focus), for a total of +11/+6.
With his shield, he has 6(BAB)+3(Str)+1(Weapon Training).
Total, with TWF, Fighter B has +9/+8/+4/+3.
His damage is 1d8+3+1+2 (1d8+5, 19/20 x2) with the longsword, and 1d6+1+1(1d6+2, x2) for the shield.
He can also fight defensively to gain +2 AC, at a cost of -4 to his attacks.
Now let's make them fight!
Round one: Fighter A sees Fighter B, and sunders his weapons and armor, rendering him defenseless, then kills him.
Joking!
Round one: Fighter A attacks Fighter B without Power Attack, getting a 5 on all of her attack rolls. She misses with both attacks.
Fighter B also gets a 5 on all of his attack rolls, and does not fight defensively. He also misses with every attack.
Round two: Fighter A gets a 10 on all of her attack rolls. She cannot hit his AC, and deals no damage.
Fighter B also gets a 10 on all of his attack rolls. He also misses every single attack.
Round three: Fighter A gets a 15 on both of her attacks. Success! She hits him once for 3d6+13 damage (23). He's pretty hurt.
Fighter B also gets a 15, and hits with both of his primary attacks, dealing 1d6+2 and 1d8+5 (15) damage. She's scratched.
Round four: Fighter A, through some kind of miracle, gets a 20 on all rolls. She crits twice with the greatsword, dealing 10d6+52 damage (87), cleaving poor Fighter B in half.
Fighter B is miraculously raised by his teammates, and through a miracle spell, also gets a 20 on all of his rolls. He hits with every single attack, dealing 4d6+8 (21) and 4d8+20 (38) damage. Fighter A is left at -13 HP, but she is still alive.
As you can see, in nearly all situations, Fighter A deals more damage, hits more often, and is generally more effective. Don't forget in the above encounter, Fighter B held a significant advantage with the consistency of the numbers better suited to his multiple attacks, as well as the Natural 20 being more effective with his x2 crit on his shield.
Fighter A has a 45% chance of hitting with her first attack, and a 20% chance of hitting with her second. She deals an average of 23 damage (max 31) with each attack.
Fighter B has, in order, 45%, 40%, 20%, and 15% chance of connecting with his attacks. They also deal less damage (avg 9 and 5, max 13 and 8) and are more spread out.
To put it simply, AC doesn't counter DPR very well. And if you went overboard, fighting defensively with Combat Expertise, you would never hit anything.
Nitpick: Armor bonuses(like the bracers and full plate) don't stack. The bigger one overrides the smaller one.
Westbrook, I agree with your premise here. I've thought that shields need help for a long time. Watch any movie or weapons demonstration involving shields EVER and the fighter's primary defense is not his armor...it's his shield! And we've all seen countless pieces of art showing a warrior throwing up his shield to protect himself from a dragon's breath, or flying rock shards, or whatever. Shields should be a bigger deal, IMO. Using a shield should cost you some melee power, but it should crank your AC.
But hey, this is all opinion anyway.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Westbrook, that is a pretty poorly built sword and board guy in your example there. I don't think anyone claims that it's odd that "decent fighter" can beat up "crap fighter." Try this fighter B:(I won't even use TWF with the shield)
Same ability scores as Fighter A.
Same equips as A, but replace the greatsword with a longsword, and the bracers with a +1 heavy shield.
Same feat choices as A, swapped out for longsword.
So now fighter B has a 23 AC, and attacks for +15/+10(1d8+1d6+10), or power attacking +13/+8(1d8+1d6+14).
Everybody power attacks.
Average damage for fighter A vs. B = (.55+.30)*29.5+.085*26 = 27.2 DPR. Will drop fighter B in 3 rounds(average).
Average damage for B = (.70+.45)*21+.115*17.5 = 26.2 DPR. Will drop fighter A in 3 rounds(average).
Huh. Seems to come down to initiative/lucky/unlucky rolls to me. Those DPR numbers include criticals.
Fighter A gets in one more average point of damage per round. Yes, that's there, but it's not a crushing advantage.
Lemmy: If we remove TWF penalties, cue the hundreds of rogues who will shred people with spiked shields with no penalty. Even if they don't have shield proficiency, getting it is essentially two weapon focuses.
You misunderstand me. I meany "remove the rule that removes the penalty".
As for the cover bit...not really. I suppose kite shields and tower shields might work like that, and they do under the pathfinder systems.
But most shield just won't work that way. Bucklers are TINY, not what you think when you picture a shield in your head. Try stretching your hands so your pinkie finger is as far as possible from your thumb, and then connect your thumbs. THAT is the size of a typical buckler, and as you can tell, it doesn't really cover much.
As for the larger shields? Well, what we typically picture as a shield, metal, with a triangular bottom, is a heater shield. It typically is as wide as a large human chest, and I suppose it will be hard for them to target your right arm or something. The other 70% of your body? Not so much. And if you actively attempt to use your shield as cover (maybe a fighting defensive bonus) you compromise your attack and remove any positional advantage you may have. Not to mention, they can just hit your feet while you try to cover your chest.
I was mostly thinking about Heavy shields, actually. Bucklers aren't supposed to offer that much of an AC bonus anyway. They are just a nice bonus if you have a free hand or can afford the -1 penalty to 2-handed attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
poorly considered analysis deleted
If there is any rational reason for fighter B to have vastly inferior armor, it completely escapes me. If you are going to have to gimp the AC guy to make your point, you probably can't actually make it.
I'll give you 2 PFS builds. Both will be twinked and equipped to WBL.
OK here's the builds
THF build
THF
Human Fighter 6
N Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +2; Senses Perception +0
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 21, touch 11, flat-footed 20 (+10 armor, +1 Dex)
hp 58 (6d10+18)
Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +5 (+2 vs. fear)
Defensive Abilities bravery +2
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +2 Greatsword +14/+9 (2d6+20/19-20/x2)
Special Attacks weapon training abilities (heavy blades +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Base Atk +6; CMB +10 (+12 Sundering); CMD 23 (25 vs. Sunder)
Feats Furious Focus, Improved Sunder, Iron Will, Lunge, Power Attack -2/+4, Toughness, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Weapon Specialization (Greatsword)
Traits Indomitable Faith, Tactician (1/day)
Skills Acrobatics -3 (-7 jump), Climb +2, Escape Artist -3, Fly -3, Ride -3, Stealth -3, Swim +2
Languages Common
Other Gear +1 Full plate, +2 Greatsword, Belt of giant strength +2, 1000 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bravery +2 (Ex) +2 to Will save vs. Fear
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Improved Sunder You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when sundering.
Lunge Can increase reach by 5 ft, but take -2 to AC for 1 rd.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Tactician (1/day) Gain a +2 trait bonus on an attack of opportunity.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
AC Specialist
S&B
Dwarf Fighter 6
N Medium Humanoid (dwarf)
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +1
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 32, touch 14, flat-footed 29 (+12 armor, +4 shield, +2 Dex, +2 natural, +1 deflection, +1 dodge)
hp 58 (6d10+18)
Fort +8, Ref +4, Will +4 (+2 vs. fear); +2 vs. poison, spells, and spell-like abilities
Defensive Abilities bravery +2, defensive training
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee Heavy Shield Bash +7/+2 (1d4+7/x2) and
. . +1 Longsword +10/+5 (1d8+11/19-20/x2)
Special Attacks hatred, weapon training abilities (heavy blades +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 17, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Base Atk +6; CMB +7 (+9 Sundering); CMD 23 (23 vs. Bull Rush, 25 vs. Sunder, 23 vs. Trip)
Feats Dodge, Improved Sunder, Ironhide, Power Attack -2/+4, Shield Focus, Weapon Focus (Longsword), Weapon Specialization (Longsword)
Traits Defender of the Society, Indomitable Faith
Skills Acrobatics -3 (-7 jump), Appraise +0 (+2 to determine the price of nonmagic items with precious metals or gemstones), Climb +2, Escape Artist -3, Fly -3, Handle Animal +3, Intimidate +3, Perception +1 (+3 to notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors in stone walls or floors), Ride -3, Stealth -3, Survival +5, Swim -2
Languages Common, Dwarven
SQ greed, hardy, slow and steady, stability, stonecunning +2
Other Gear +2 Full plate, +1 Heavy steel shield, +1 Longsword, Amulet of natural armor +1, Handy haversack (1 @ 17.3 lbs), Ring of protection +1, 865 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bravery +2 (Ex) +2 to Will save vs. Fear
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Defender of the Society +1 trait bonus to Armor Class when wearing medium or heavy armor.
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Greed +2 to Appraise checks to determine the price of nonmagical goods that contain precious metals or gemstones.
Hardy +2 Gain a racial bonus to saves vs Poison, Spells and Spell-Like effects.
Hatred +1 Gain a racial bonus to attacks vs Goblinoids/Orcs.
Improved Sunder You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when sundering.
Ironhide Your skin is thicker and more resilient than that of most of your people.
Prerequisites: Con 13; dwarf, half-orc, or orc.
Benefit: You gain a +1 natural armor bonus due to your unusually tough hide.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Shield Focus +1 Shield AC
Slow and Steady Your base speed is never modified by encumbrance.
Stability +4 Gain bonus to CMD vs bull rush/trip while standing on ground.
Stonecunning +2 +2 bonus to Perception vs unusual stonework. Free check within 10 feet.
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Then you feed in the basic damage into the damage calc spreadsheet (not included here)
The THF is +16/+9 with average damage of 27, crit range of 19-20 with a x2 mult. His DPR against the armor guy is 8.91. This will take him 7 rounds before he kills the opponent.
The S&B is +10/+5 with average damage of 15.5, crit range of 19-20 with a x2 multiplier. His DPR against the THF is 12.78. The tank kills his opponent in 5 rounds.
You can modify the builds some, but the defense buy is built hard for defense, and the offense guy is built hard for offense.
I can build for 11th, and I'm reasonably sure the gap will get worse.
Now if someone cares to make the argument that offense wins because of other factors (like exposure to save or suck), that's fine, but head to head the guy who can protect himself will win.