As far as I know, aligning a shield as described in the playtest rules is a move action. However, it isn't specified whether this can be treated in the same way as with drawing a weapon and, therefore, have it being a free action if performed as part of a movement (provided you have at least +1 bab, and you were already wielding the shield, of course).
Is this something that has been contemplated and decided it wasn't wanted (that would be the reason why it isn't noted) or is this something you devs might not have thought about yet? I would like to propose adding this, what do you think?
I like how it looks from a visual point of view as well, charging onwards while raising up the shield and screaming at your opponent looks like a great image
In the same way this would help the bull rush maneuver being a bit more useful. (let alone the fact the I would have made the bull-rush bonus a +2 to hit, instead of +1, but that's another discussion!)
:)
I realised I have another question/proposal:
> Can you align a shield while you are flanked?
If yes, should you be able to? I don't think so.
Aligning a shield aligns it against a single opponent. Being flanked does not prevent you from doing this in any way.
Aligning a shield aligns it against a single opponent. Being flanked does not prevent you from doing this in any way.
Yes, that's my point! I think the reason why "flanking" exists is to describe a state in which 1 person being attacked by two cannot give their full attention to 1 opponent only, it has to stay alert to both of them at the same time. That's why they are at a disadvantage and take the "flanked" debuff.
So, for the same reason it would follow that the person being flanked should not be free to align his shield against either of the two opponents flanking them, because they would be giving too much attention to one and not to the other, leaving a big opening.So that's why I propose you should not be able to align the shield while you are flanked.
Or... and I don't like this option, you could do that but you would give a AOO to the guy you are not aligned to (which I wouldn't want because it's clunky, so no).
That doesn't make any sense at all either from the in game mechanics, balance, or sense. I've got a guy in front of me and a guy behind me I'll block the guy in front of me with the shield and deal with the guy behind me is precisely what shields were made for and they're really good at it.
Balance wise aligning a shield is very rarely worth it compared to stepping away and not getting a full attack in the face, or full attacking and dropping the guy quicker. It doesn't need to be more complicated less powerful and less realistic. It doesn't matter how two people stand I can give one of them the shield
Yes you are dividing your attention between the two of them, hence the Flat-Footed -2 to AC. That said, there's no reason why you can't angle your shield arm more towards one of them, keeping them more at bay with the slab-o-metal while parrying the other with your weapon/sidestepping the other's blows. You're still splitting your attention, so you're still flat-footed, but you still have the slab-o-metal taking some the blows from one side.
That doesn't make any sense at all either from the in game mechanics, balance, or sense.
I can see you don't like the idea and I am guessing you have little or no experience in actual fighting with a shield (I'm talking about HEMA for example).
Speaking from experience, you can't properly focus your shield on 1 opponent without giving the other one an advantage.But okay, it was just a suggestion.
And what about my first suggestion? Aligning a shield move action to be performed as part of movement, same as drawing a weapon?
That doesn't make any sense at all either from the in game mechanics, balance, or sense.I can see you don't like the idea and I am guessing you have little or no experience in actual fighting with a shield (I'm talking about HEMA for example).
When I've used them its been more along the lines of blocking a critter or a drunk guy (sometimes with a drunk guy) On the one hand, there might be something about weapon combat that doesn't translate. On the other hand, its not like starfinders don't use shields against critters. On the other other hand (this is why kasatha's make great judges), Emu's and great horned owls are trying to hit you for real and they LOVE eyeballs. (don't ask where the geese are aiming for)
Speaking from experience, you can't properly focus your shield on 1 opponent without giving the other one an advantage.
But okay, it was just a suggestion.
The other one HAS an advantage. He has a +2 flank bonus. You're trying to argue that the game should give more than that. Thats a lot different than its an advantage/not an advantage. A +2 is a big deal, its half as hard as fighting from the ground.
What you're arguing is that sword and shield guy is MORE disadvantaged by having someone on two sides than someone with just a longsword or a spear is and that's just.. no. A shield limits your effective targeting area just by being there.
I think you're also seeing the person with the shield holding still instead of moving it around. A ready doesn't have to be "im gonna hold up my shield against that guy" it can be "i'm going to spend x amount of attention blocking that guy with my shield " Having someone on your other side can't prevent that. A round is six seconds not just an instant.
D20 doesn't do a good job of emulating just how defensive a reasonably lengthed weapon like a sword or staff is vs trying to stand there and dodge. But If I've got X amount of attention on guy A with a shield in the way it gives me Y more amount of attention I can pay to blocking guy B with my sword.
And what about my first suggestion? Aligning a shield move action to be performed as part of movement, same as drawing a weapon?
THAT wold solve a lot of my problems with (edit) shields in general, but i wouldn't want to see the one time you really need a shield to have it shut off at the cost of more complexity for what i don't think is a fair evaluation
BigNorseWolf... "more complexity" is your last reply. My proposal has no added complexity.
I am saying that giving the shield alignment bonus to someone who is flanked is too much. It's too good, it's too powerful, it's unrealistic, is wrong.
I believe that a flanked combatant already has the basic bonus of its shield because they are wielding it and should not be given the ADDED advantage of the alignment bonus, unless they loose the flanked condition.
You can align a shield to recieve a +2 shield bonus against one opponent as a move action
vs
You can align a shield to receive a +2 shield bonus against one opponent unless you're flanked.
That is another rule. It is objectively more complexity. It's not calculus but it's another rule.
It also makes no sense. I can't ready my shield against Bob because bill is over there because....? It doesn't follow. -I know hema and it makes sense- isn't really a point. I realize that some things in a crazy universe where space rats and space lizard wizards are fighting with lazer swords are so unrealistic that they warrant bending the rules or taking another look at something, but my ability to block Bob with a shield because Bills on my other side.... no. I don't think its true, much less so much of a glaring imposition on reality that it needs a rule to emulate it.
Keeping your AC high enough that a shield bonus or a block bonus is already a high cost in this system. Tanking doesn't need a nerf it needs some encouragement so that double attack BURN EVERYTHING WITH ALL THE DEEEPS isn't the only real choice.
There's a CR 7 feathered renkroda on one side of me and a CR 3 goon on the other side of me. What do you mean I can't align my shield against the renkroda? I don't care about the goon, even if he hits me I'll be fine. It's the hypercarnivore I want to focus all my attention (and shield) on.
Oh of course, then we should make the game so that when you are fighting between 1 strong and 1 very weak creature you can ignore the flanked condition too, because of your logic? 1 of them doesn't matter?
That's not how you craft good rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a CR 7 feathered renkroda on one side of me and a CR 3 goon on the other side of me. What do you mean I can't align my shield against the renkroda? I don't care about the goon, even if he hits me I'll be fine. It's the hypercarnivore I want to focus all my attention (and shield) on.Oh of course, then we should make the game so that when you are fighting between 1 strong and 1 very weak creature you can ignore the flanked condition too, because of your logic? 1 of them doesn't matter?
That's not how you craft good rules.
Let's not pretend like the current flanking rules are divinely inspired awesomeness.
* If one of the creatures flanking me can't really do anything to me - can't hit my AC, can't penetrate my DR, I'm incorporeal and he only has a nonmagical knife - why would his flanking matter?
* If I don't know an enemy is there (stealth, invisibility, I'm blind in a vacuum so there's no sound), why can he help someone else get a flanking bonus against me? I don't know he's there so he's not distracting me.
* If there's an illusion of a creature that looks scary and important, why can't it flank me?
Ascalaphus Yeah and that's why you don't make the rule for the tiny exceptions, you make the rule as sound as you can, and then you will make the exceptions.
But never mind, I can see you clearly don't like this idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't, no. Stepping out of a flank typically involves a guarded step, so if you were flanked then getting a shield aligned would take up a guarded step followed by a move action, that's your whole turn lost.
And aligning a shield is typically something that comes up if you're stuck in a flank, either because there's no better place to step to, or because you need to be in that exact spot (blocking a door, protecting a teammate).
It also doesn't make enough sense to me: if I want to use my shield against X most of all, why is Y standing elsewhere preventing that? It's my choice to neglect defense against Y by spending my actions to focus on X. I could see ruling it that if you align your shield against X, that you don't get any shield bonus against anyone else: your shield is either in "just this guy, but really good" or "just a bit against everyone" mode.
I don't, no. Stepping out of a flank typically involves a guarded step, so if you were flanked then getting a shield aligned would take up a guarded step followed by a move action, that's your whole turn lost.
Nope, if you read my original post I proposed aligning a shield to be done as part of movement in the same way as drawing a weapon is. So you would end up your guarded step with your shield aligned up.
if I want to use my shield against X most of all, why is Y standing elsewhere preventing that?
because combat? That's what enemies are supposed to do to you.
your shield is either in "just this guy, but really good" or "just a bit against everyone" mode.
Yep. That's how shields work.
Apart from you overcomplicating my explanation, I fail to understand any of your arguments against my proposal.|
|
I don't, no. Stepping out of a flank typically involves a guarded step, so if you were flanked then getting a shield aligned would take up a guarded step followed by a move action, that's your whole turn lost.Nope, if you read my original post I proposed aligning a shield to be done as part of movement in the same way as drawing a weapon is. So you would end up your guarded step with your shield aligned up.
You can't draw a weapon as part of a guarded step, only as part of the "Move up to your speed" move action. So that doesn't work.
if I want to use my shield against X most of all, why is Y standing elsewhere preventing that?because combat? That's what enemies are supposed to do to you.
Why can't I choose what enemy I really consider threatening enough?
your shield is either in "just this guy, but really good" or "just a bit against everyone" mode.Yep. That's how shields work.
Apart from you overcomplicating my explanation, I fail to understand any of your arguments against my proposal.
If I'm holding a shield, why can't I decide to turn my back on one enemy and align that shield against the guy in front of me?
The variant I propose is that if you do that - focus your shield one one person to gain a higher bonus - that you don't get any shield bonus against anyone else. They don't necessarily have to be flanking you for that. But nobody can stop you from aligning your shield just by standing there. They'd have to pin you, or paralyze you or something.
I think that would be better. I'm concerned shields may make it a bit too easy to tank a BBEG and not have to worry about the BBEG's goons. Lower-CR enemies like a goon squad already have some difficulty hitting a vanguard, so giving them a break might help to keep shields balanced.