| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks needlessly complex to me.
IMHO there is only one change necessary to eliminate all criticism of the shield mechanic:
- Shields should provide their basic +1 or +2 AC bonus at all times, as long as the shield is equipped.
- The "Raise Shield" action is used normally, and provides the listed measure of DR against one attack.
With this one simple modification, everyone will be happy.
I'd say I prefer a reliable DR to an iffy roll. I'm going to try it as they've already laid it out, and see what I think before I start thinking about alternatives.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just envision it as "I've got 3 buckets of attention I can devote per round. I'm going to devote 1 bucket to making sure my shield is in the right place to protect me. If I don't pay attention and am too busy with something else, my enemies can just attack from an angle the shield doesn't defend."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
realistically, you would use a shield and weapon in tandem.
Have you tried actually doing that? Fighting with a shield and a weapon at the same time? It's incredibly hard to keep track of what both of your arms are doing all the time and whether your non-dominant arm is correctly positioned to defend you when you're probably also going to need it to counter-balance your weapon swings. So, yeah, readying a shield to block takes an actual moment of concentration and affects the rest of your actions.
That can be overcome with training, sure, and there's confirmation (In the gearing up blog thread IIRC) that feats exist that allow you to both raise your shield and block with it as a single reaction instead of having to use an action to raise and a reaction to block. So you're looking to fix something that's already fixed.EDIT: My point is that the baseline for "proficient shield user" is not equal to "expert shield user", as it is in first edition more or less. Someone can know how to properly use a shield to block (it's not as easy as it sounds) and still not be able to seamlessly use a shield during a fight. I like the granularity offered by the new shield mechanics.
Pros: I think this feels more "realistic" and doesn't have a perceived "punishment" associated with it.
I disagree. To me taking a constant -2 to attack as long as the shield is equipped is pretty punishing, especially with how this system has shown to scale AC with level. And heavens forbid the enemy is also wearing a shield, we'll never hit each other. Really, paying an action when I need to seems a lot less punishing than a constant penalty to attack.
I'd expect using a shield to actually increase your hit modifier. You can use it to open up holes in your opponents defenses. Have you ever fought with a shield? There are really good reasons for shields to be so popular in multiple cultures with multiple fighting styles.
Wouldn't that -2 to attack mess with your crit chances? Id assume it makes sword and board inferior?
I wish I could find the post detailing the current shield mechanics vs a two hander one on one. I recall the shield user winning more than 53.8% of the time. And the thing is, they should. Because avoiding damage is actually just one small part of a tank's job. They also need to prevent their allies from getting hurt. The two hander does this better if it kills the enemy faster. The shield user needs feats to let it block for an ally to facilitate that.
I wish I could find the post detailing the current shield mechanics vs a two hander one on one. I recall the shield user winning more than 53.8% of the time. And the thing is, they should. Because avoiding damage is actually just one small part of a tank's job. They also need to prevent their allies from getting hurt. The two hander does this better if it kills the enemy faster. The shield user needs feats to let it block for an ally to facilitate that.
I remember this post! I think it was a thread about Power Attack math.
The sword-and-board fighter with Power Attack is actually stronger than a greatsword fighter with Power Attack.
I wish I could find the post detailing the current shield mechanics vs a two hander one on one. I recall the shield user winning more than 53.8% of the time. And the thing is, they should. Because avoiding damage is actually just one small part of a tank's job. They also need to prevent their allies from getting hurt. The two hander does this better if it kills the enemy faster. The shield user needs feats to let it block for an ally to facilitate that.
I remember this post! I think it was a thread about Power Attack math.
The sword-and-board fighter with Power Attack is actually stronger than a greatsword fighter with Power Attack.
Oh, hey look, the same poster ran both of these experiments. That's cool.
So yeah, I want to reiterate my point that a 60% margin of victory is actually better for balance than a 53.8%. The shield user can be significantly better in one on one duals and still not be better overall, because Pathfinder is more than one on one duals.
The two hander kills enemies faster, which means his teammates are less likely to get hit even if he does. (And most enemies will switch targets if they find they can't effectively get past a shield.) He does better against save or suck casters who lack bypass shields entirely. And even if it takes an action to regrip his weapon, releasing his grip as a free action means he has an easier time pulling out potions or opening doors than the shield user.
All those things need to be taken into account, not just if the two hander beats the shield user one on one.
Wouldn't that -2 to attack mess with your crit chances? Id assume it makes sword and board inferior?Having a shield messes with your opponent's crit chances too, so it evens out.
The biggest difference is having a second chance to stop an attack seems to be slightly better than dealing a bigger die of damage with 50% more STR bonus.
The sword and board guy is STILL superior to the two handed fighter, though only slightly more so.
He's slightly superior at outlasting opponents. Again, that doesn't make him superior across the board, even if you don't touch other math.
I think we are in agreement on what the goal should be. I just think the current solution accomplishes it better than your alternative. Maybe some tweaks to your idea could change that?
Off the top of my head I'd like a contested roll out of the scenario, maybe linked to proficiency.
Warning, self indulgent pipe dreams ahead.
Untrained shield use- takes an action a turn to keep ready. You aren't good at it at all and it keeps drifting to poor angles.
Trained- You can hold a board in front of you without effortand no longer need an action to keep it ready. An active block unreadies your shield.
Expert- Your shield becomes an extension of your arm. Roll your shield proficiency bonus vs the incoming attack or DC of the effect. Your shield only unreadies on a failure.
Master- As expert, but your shield only unreadies on a critical failure. If this roll is a critical success against a melee attack, the attacker becomes flat footed until the beginning of their turn.
Legendary- A shield in your hands is a a wall your foes crash upon. your shield does not unready after an active block. In addition, you receive half the DR of an active block to all attacks as well as half the save bonus of an active block to all valid spells.
Could we perhaps wait until seeing the full Shield mechanics and associated feats before proposing "fixes"?
No. What has already been revealed is worth criticizing and contemplating solutions to.