Animated shields are broken. They make the 1 handed weapon as an option at high levels irrelevant and allow two handed fighters the best of both worlds - good defense and good offense. I also hate the flavor - the idea of a shield floating around and blocking things for a warrior type like Conan just doesn't float my boat.
My worse nightmare is a character weilding a spiked chain and utlizing an animated shield. Oh the pain! Make it stop!
|
Animated shields are broken. They make the 1 handed weapon as an option at high levels irrelevant and allow two handed fighters the best of both worlds - good defense and good offense. I also hate the flavor - the idea of a shield floating around and blocking things for a warrior type like Conan just doesn't float my boat.
My worse nightmare is a character weilding a spiked chain and utlizing an animated shield. Oh the pain! Make it stop!
/Signed
This is a metagaming tool & really should have a time limit if nothing else, Like a dancing weapon does.
Well, I can see how it can be broken. However, none of the groups I've played in ever used it.
No one in my groups ever used it either, but I happen to know that's only because they mentally lumped it with Dancing weapons as having a duration.
I think the idea of converting this into a mechanism similar to the dancing weapon quality has some merit. As is, this is too good.
I'd prefer it get changed to work more like a dancing weapon - for 4 rounds after you activate it, and at the same time get a bump upward in price.
And perhaps add to it:
1) it requires a move action to activate (loosing it from your arm)2) it's power works 3 times per day
Remember, that if you price something over its benefit, you might as well remove it from the game. Nobody here seems to be claiming that this is a must-have item that their players grab at first opportunity.
I've never used one or seen one in use at the table, but it's still a very interesting option to have laying in the Lego box we build our characters out of.
For people who don't like the flavour, simply disallow the item, just like any other item you don't like. Again, it's always easier to deny your players access to something in a rulebook than it is to convince a DM to allow something that isn't written in the same book.
Finally, as a simple tweak, perhaps make it such that it requires a swift action to maintain its animation each round. Given swifts are increasingly valuable, it makes a player think long and hard about how they'll manage this resource.
Jacking up the price, lowing the utility, or removing the item is... arbitrary.
Director of Games
|
Jacking up the price, lowing the utility, or removing the item is... arbitrary.
Not in this case. This enhancement fundamentally shifts the power balance between two weapon fighters and sword and board, allowing the former to be better than the latter. At the very least, this item should work like a dancing weapon, just for clarity's sake.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jacking up the price, lowing the utility, or removing the item is... arbitrary.Not in this case. This enhancement fundamentally shifts the power balance between two weapon fighters and sword and board, allowing the former to be better than the latter. At the very least, this item should work like a dancing weapon, just for clarity's sake.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I reiterate; will anyone use it under that condition? It doesn't sound - so far - as though anyone actually uses it as it stands. I know I won't consider using it as dancing is.
This is me, playing the devil's advocate, of course. Is this change because something is truly, demonstrably, real-life mechanically wrong, or is it because on paper it looks wrong? I'm not going to fight for this one very hard, but again, I think you'll find most players spending their gold on other items regardless of how broken-on-paper animated is, which tells you something. I call this "the lesson of the MIC". The Magic Item Compendium pointed out that a tonne of stuff in the DMG was priced correctly for the mechanics of the item, but nobody would buy them because there was a plethora of more consistently useful items.
Shrug. That's my stab at producing the rational defense you solicited.
|
My experience - repeat, my experience - has been that players in my games have snapped up every animated shield I've allowed them access to - to the point that I don't put them in my games anymore. I'd still allow a character to craft one if they wanted it that badly, but I don't include them as loot or make them available for trade. I instituted the rule after running an Arcana Unearthed game 2-3 years ago in which three of the characters snapped up or crafted animated shields (the greatspear-wielding tank, another fighter-type wielding his bastard sword two-handed, and a mage) and another player (the TWF-ing unfettered) started crab-assing cuz he wanted one, too.
ADDED: The issue, I think, is that the animated shield is an inexpensive way of circumventing the no-shield-bonus-for-you trade-off made by high damage-dealing fighting styles. It's too good to ignore, and it's too goofy-looking to allow it to be that common. In all, I think I like the option of making it work like a dancing weapon best - as a +2 enhancement, it's still worthwhile for a bastard sword or waraxe wielder who wants to be able to go two-handed for extra damage occasionally, without being a cheap exploit for greatsword wielders or TWF-ers.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
If the characters in my games haven't taken Improved Buckler Defense, then the ones who do use shields take Animated Shields. It gets so bad I have routinely used mook creatures with Dispel Magic to take their shields out for a few rounds.
Having it work for a limited time is a good idea, 4 rounds is about the average length of most combats. I do agree that a move action to loose the shield makes sense (as it leaves time to say activate an energy weapon... if anyone enforces that rule that is).
--School of Vrock!
I do agree that a move action to loose the shield makes sense (as it leaves time to say activate an energy weapon... if anyone enforces that rule that is).
--School of Vrock!
Re: Energy weapons - It is a standard action to activate them, but they have no duration, so most of my players simply drew and activated before combat (flaming swords make good torches, btw). If you are caught with your weapon sheathed, or switch weapons in combat, then you either lose the action or don't get to 'Flame on!'
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Re: Energy weapons - It is a standard action to activate them, but they have no duration, so most of my players simply drew and activated before combat (flaming swords make good torches, btw). If you are caught with your weapon sheathed, or switch weapons in combat, then you either lose the action or don't get to 'Flame on!'I do agree that a move action to loose the shield makes sense (as it leaves time to say activate an energy weapon... if anyone enforces that rule that is).
--School of Vrock!
True, but if the PC's aren't the one initiating the encounter... like at night during a rest period or being ambushed in their favorite tavern?
It's also a stop on a TWF that might want to charge the opening round.
Is there anybody out there that can give me a good reason as to why this shield enhancement does not deserve to be nerfed quite a bit?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I guess from our groups experience I'd say it wasn't a necessity. Reasons being that at mid to high levels melee types will start facing more "touch" and "AoE" type attacks that don't don't take into account shield bonuses. Yeah that 2H Power attacking Barb might be benefiting from a +5 Animated X shield but his AC is still going to be abysmally low to touch attacks and would have been better off spending the money on other items to be brutally honest. I guess it depends on your gaming scenario, if you are doing majority melee combats and/or lower magic setting, of course it is going to be good. Start throwing magic attacks (or pre PFRPG) grapples and other melee touch attacks and it isn't all that great, you end up taking penalties (not so much of an issue generally unless it is a tower shield for the -2 to hit opposed to skill checks) for no gain and you paid for it... I guess my point is that while I see a quite a few people clamoring for the nerf stick, the item is good I agree, but not so good that it has to be "nerfed quite a bit". This isn't Druid or Polymorph folks. At mid levels when you can afford the item it is nice, it loses its effectiveness the more you level in a core/fantasy setting though.
I almost was thinking that the "dancing shield" had merit but then I considered it the last few days and what a dancing weapon actually does versus the shield... There is no comparison, I could have a shield that gives me AC and may not even work, or I could have a weapon that is attacking effectively just like I do, at the same time, the opponent would be dead before the AC even became an issue in a stand up fight. Just raising the price puts the shield possibly "out of play" as it isn't available when it could be the most useful and by the time someone could afford it there are probably better options - at which point you have essentially rendered it useless. If your idea of "nerfed quite a bit" is to make it use a standard or move action to start the effect (and not renew it every 4 rounds) I can live with it, but I don't think it should be done. If it is to bump up the "+" cost of the effect or make it act like a dancing weapon place me firmly in the No, this an unnecessary modification for the sake of making it camp.
On a side note it is similar to a discussion that went on in our group about the balance of the feral template. At low levels it is a steal, at high levels it isn't worth it. Once we all got into tearing it apart and coming the conclusion of why they put it at that "balance" point we agreed it was ok, we also wished there was a "sliding" scale that could be implemented some way. The animated shield is a lot like that, good in the beginning but it tapers off as you go.
Being priced at +2, this enchantment insures that a two-handed (or two-weapon) wielder will always have an AC two lower than a sword-and-board character who spent essentially the same cash.
At low level, the sword-and-board character will have a shield and the other won't, a +2 difference.
At higher level, the sword-and board fighter can afford +2 more bonuses, since he don'es have to buy 'Animated'.
So the real question here is if the extra utility of a two-handed weapon is always worth exactly -2 AC.
|
As Ross suggests, the flipside is that two-weapon fighters could be significantly behind the curve in terms of AC at high levels. After all, a sword-and-boarder has two potential sets of basic enhnacement to AC (shield and armour) whereas the two-weapon fighter just has one, which could mean 5 less AC and a few less nice enchantment effects on the shield. Is the +2 cost that inherently fair or not? Is the few extra damage of longsword v greatsword worth it on that basis? I don't know, frankly, I only ever had one PC (with admittedly munchkin tendencies) use one and it didn't seem that big a deal to me. Buffs from other PCs normally seem more important.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
As Ross suggests, the flipside is that two-weapon fighters could be significantly behind the curve in terms of AC at high levels. After all, a sword-and-boarder has two potential sets of basic enhnacement to AC (shield and armour) whereas the two-weapon fighter just has one, which could mean 5 less AC and a few less nice enchantment effects on the shield. Is the +2 cost that inherently fair or not? Is the few extra damage of longsword v greatsword worth it on that basis? I don't know, frankly, I only ever had one PC (with admittedly munchkin tendencies) use one and it didn't seem that big a deal to me. Buffs from other PCs normally seem more important.
It's not just the difference between a 1d8 and 2d6 damage for longsword vs. greatsword. It's the extra 1/2 Str damage plus the doubling of power attack damage for a 2 handed weapon. That adds up to quite a bit. Also, if you factor in enlarge person, the greatsword gets even better compared to the longsword with the damage die bump.
The other piece of the equasion is that, since the 2 handed weilder dishes out significantly more damage, they can often kill things quicker, which results in fewer attacks made against them compared to the sword and board fighter. Therefore, their lower AC isn't as bad as it looks on paper.
So the real question here is if the extra utility of a two-handed weapon is always worth exactly -2 AC.
A two-handed weapon is worth more at higher levels. The extra damage a two-hander does goes up with higher strength. At 30 strength the difference is 5 points plus the base weapon damage difference. Also, two-handed weapons benefit more from the power attack feat and any effect which increases size greatly benefits two-handed weapons with their higher base damage (going from medium to large increases a greatsword to 3d6 damage while it only increases a longsword to 2d6). High base damage is also much more effective against monsters with DR and all of these ways to deal extra damage with two-handed weapons compounds itself against opponents with DR.
So no, the extra utility of a two-handed weapon is not worth -2 to AC...it's worth a lot more.
|
|
As Ross suggests, the flipside is that two-weapon fighters could be significantly behind the curve in terms of AC at high levels. After all, a sword-and-boarder has two potential sets of basic enhnacement to AC (shield and armour) whereas the two-weapon fighter just has one, which could mean 5 less AC and a few less nice enchantment effects on the shield. Is the +2 cost that inherently fair or not? Is the few extra damage of longsword v greatsword worth it on that basis? I don't know, frankly, I only ever had one PC (with admittedly munchkin tendencies) use one and it didn't seem that big a deal to me. Buffs from other PCs normally seem more important.It's not just the difference between a 1d8 and 2d6 damage for longsword vs. greatsword. It's the extra 1/2 Str damage plus the doubling of power attack damage for a 2 handed weapon. That adds up to quite a bit. Also, if you factor in enlarge person, the greatsword gets even better compared to the longsword with the damage die bump.
The other piece of the equasion is that, since the 2 handed weilder dishes out significantly more damage, they can often kill things quicker, which results in fewer attacks made against them compared to the sword and board fighter. Therefore, their lower AC isn't as bad as it looks on paper.
Well, Enlarge Person works for 1H weapon fighters too. I take your point about 2H weapons and superior weapon damage but in my experience weapon damage per se begins to matter much less at higher levels than compared to enhancement add-ons, so the type of weapon begins to matter less and less as the levels go up. I'm not really coming down either way, I'm just not convinced yet by the arguments that the trade-off is necessarily unfair. One of the most powerful melee types I have experienced as a DM was a 2WF using short swords.
One of the most powerful melee types I have experienced as a DM was a 2WF using short swords.
Yes, and compared to someone using one shortsword and a shield I'm sure there would be a significant difference.
The fix I like best is making the Animated Shield fall in line with Dancing weapons by having a duration. The two-handed guy now needs to spend an action, and if combat goes too long will lose his shield.
However, I am worried that this will still cause the situation in which a longsword wielded with two hands becomes the 'best build', since once you are using it two-handed, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword does become just 2.5 damage on average.
So I therefore recommend the following change:
Give animated shields a duration, making them function similarly to dancing weapons. This is done to make the rules intuitive, and avoid the silly image of a shield just perpetually floating near its owner.
And increase their cost to a +3, thus ensuring that the AC gap between a two-handed wielder and a one-handed will continue to grow.
And also, make it clear that Tower shields can't be animated.
I am currently playing in a munchkin-esque 3.5 game (we all like a change occasionally) where I am playing a Cleric archer. One of my 1st purchases when I could afford it was an animated spiked shield. Not only does it allow me to use my bow without losing the AC bonus, but the spikes present an extra place to hang the Warning enhancement(+5 insight bonus to init). Couple that with the spikes on my full plate and my gauntlets and I get a +15 to init on top of the AC bonus.
Is it broken? I don't think so. Despite the amount of cheese you can get out of it in 3.5, I don't think it is broken in Pathfinder. Being a +2 bonus and having to already have a +1 on the shield to begin with, you are looking at a fairly hefty pricetag already for a simple +3 to AC. Also, the armor enhancements that make it broken in 3.5 do not exist in Pathfinder. Finally, if you are the GM and think that it is broken, simply limit or restrict access to it.
When I GM, I don't believe in Magic shops that stock every item available in the book. In fact, when my players want to buy an item other than a few potions or scrolls, they have to locate someone who can actually craft the item, has the requisite spells, is willing to do the work an then they have to wait the time it takes to craft it (or do it themselves). If I want the item to be particularly hard to obtain, then often the crafter will not have all of the materials he needs and send the PCs to obtain them (for a suitable discount on the final price). If the PCs manage to run through the whole gauntlet and still want the item, then I have gotten good milage out of the quest for it and I let them have it.
As GM, you have the ultimate control over your game. If you hand out treasure like candy and allow unfettered access to anything the players want, you deserve what they do to your game.
The fix I like best is making the Animated Shield fall in line with Dancing weapons by having a duration. The two-handed guy now needs to spend an action, and if combat goes too long will lose his shield.
However, I am worried that this will still cause the situation in which a longsword wielded with two hands becomes the 'best build', since once you are using it two-handed, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword does become just 2.5 damage on average.
I don't follow you Ross. If you weild a longsword with two hands, then it's exactly the same as weilding a greatsword except you're doing less damage. You still have to spend an action to activate the Animated Shield with your fix suggestion whether you're welding a longsword or a greatsword.
Couple that with the spikes on my full plate and my gauntlets and I get a +15 to init on top of the AC bonus.
If those are all Insight bonuses, which it sounds like they are, they don't stack.
I don't follow you Ross. If you weild a longsword with two hands, then it's exactly the same as weilding a greatsword except you're doing less damage. You still have to spend an action to activate the Animated Shield with your fix suggestion whether you're welding a longsword or a greatsword.
The difference is that the Longsword guy gets a bit more versatility: THe greatsword guy's feats are all invested in a weapon he can't use if he can't free up his off-hand by animating the shield. The longsword guy can fight one-handed if he can't get his shield off.
Couple that with the spikes on my full plate and my gauntlets and I get a +15 to init on top of the AC bonus.If those are all Insight bonuses, which it sounds like they are, they don't stack.
I think you'll find that Dodge, Insight and Luck bonuses stack with themselves, unlike other bonuses.
The difference is that the Longsword guy gets a bit more versatility: The greatsword guy's feats are all invested in a weapon he can't use if he can't free up his off-hand by animating the shield. The longsword guy can fight one-handed if he can't get his shield off.
The greatsword guy could just drop his shield (since he doesn't use it in the normal fashion anyway by strapping it on) as a free action if he doesn't want to spend the action to activate it.
|
|
I think you'll find that Dodge, Insight and Luck bonuses stack with themselves, unlike other bonuses.Couple that with the spikes on my full plate and my gauntlets and I get a +15 to init on top of the AC bonus.If those are all Insight bonuses, which it sounds like they are, they don't stack.
Dodge, yes (and it is a rule in the DMG that items should not grant dodge bonuses). Luck and Insight, no, I'm not aware of any rule permitting that,
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I think you'll find that Dodge, Insight and Luck bonuses stack with themselves, unlike other bonuses.Couple that with the spikes on my full plate and my gauntlets and I get a +15 to init on top of the AC bonus.If those are all Insight bonuses, which it sounds like they are, they don't stack.
Sorry Gavvin you'll find that you're wrong... Only Dodge, Unnamed, and Circumstance Bonuses (from differet sources) stack. All others do not including Luck and Insight
Insight Bonus
An insight bonus improves performance of a given activity by granting the character an almost precognitive knowledge of what might occur. Multiple insight bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest insight bonus applies.Luck Modifier
A luck modifier represents good (or bad) fortune. Multiple luck bonuses on the same character or object do not stack. Only the highest luck bonus applies.
You really do play a munchkin game!
--We will, we will VROCK you!
|
|
The difference is that the Longsword guy gets a bit more versatility: The greatsword guy's feats are all invested in a weapon he can't use if he can't free up his off-hand by animating the shield. The longsword guy can fight one-handed if he can't get his shield off.The greatsword guy could just drop his shield (since he doesn't use it in the normal fashion anyway by strapping it on) as a free action if he doesn't want to spend the action to activate it.
We seem to be bogging down in corner cases a bit. Do we have any evidence that these shields are a problem, beyond hypothesis? I'm open minded but I am also not convinced.
While I don't agree that Animated Shield is broken, or wrong... I've never really been able to argue against the points brought up. (2Weapon and 2Handers are "better" than SwordNBoard, etc.)
But now that there is a real chance that the enhancement will be changed, I feel compelled to point out a couple of things.
1) While there is a point to be made that is gives certain advantages to melee combatants, don't forget that the enhancement is of use (and potentially not broken) to archers.
2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.
I still think this is much ado about nothing...
1) While there is a point to be made that is gives certain advantages to melee combatants, don't forget that the enhancement is of use (and potentially not broken) to archers.
2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.
I still think this is much ado about nothing...
1) An archers advantage is in being able to fire from range behind allies, not in having a floating shield defend him from attacks.
2) Making the animated shield slightly less effective by increasing it's cost or making it work like a dancing weapon doesn't create the problem of unseen servants carrying around shields for you and certainly isn't an effective argument to keep animated shields from getting an adjustment in power level.|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.
You mean your 6 hit point unseen servant that goes poof with the first area damage spell that hits you and has your shield fall on the ground? If that's how you want to spend your spell slots...
You mean your 6 hit point unseen servant that goes poof with the first area damage spell that hits you and has your shield fall on the ground? If that's how you want to spend your spell slots...2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.
You mean the same area damage spell that an Animated shield doesn't help against?
And if a X level Class Y / 1 level Sorcerer spends it's spell slots to rub a silly reaction in the face of a silly GM that is being silly over how an imaginary item "looks" in an imaginary game world then those are spell slots well spent.
1) While there is a point to be made that is gives certain advantages to melee combatants, don't forget that the enhancement is of use (and potentially not broken) to archers.
2) Be careful of creating a "proud nail." Make Animated too much of a big deal, and risk tactics such as having multiple Unseen Servants carrying light wooden shields to create cover / concealment etc.. I mean, I know if I were in a game were the GM had a wild hair about how goofy a floating shield looked, I'd even multiclass to an arcane caster class just to have an Unseen Servant carry a shield around me. But I'm a bastard that way.
I still think this is much ado about nothing...
1) An archers advantage is in being able to fire from range behind allies, not in having a floating shield defend him from attacks.
2) Making the animated shield slightly less effective by increasing it's cost or making it work like a dancing weapon doesn't create the problem of unseen servants carrying around shields for you and certainly isn't an effective argument to keep animated shields from getting an adjustment in power level.
I still think this is much ado about nothing...
And if a X level Class Y / 1 level Sorcerer spends it's spell slots to rub a silly reaction in the face of a silly GM that is being silly over how an imaginary item "looks" in an imaginary game world then those are spell slots well spent.
Ah yes, this convinces me...
|
Director of Games
|
So, here is my thought folks...
All things being equal, we have 3 basic melee combat builds
A: 2-handed weapon fighter
B: 2 weapon fighter
C: sword and board fighter
Both A and B have the ability to have 1.5 x their Str mod apply to damage against enemies. C has the bonus to AC from a shield, but is only going to get 1 x his Str mod to damage. This shield enhancement allows A and B to step on C's toes.
I know it is not quite as simple as that, but as someone who helped manage a campaign of thousands, once this item got into the mix, it became very common for this very reason. C should be taking a few less hits per day and A and B, but dealing a little less damage.
I am open to debate on this issue, but lets try to stay on topic. There are plenty of corner cases with this one, but I want to stay on the primary issue and not get bogged down in other items/bonuses.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Break out the nerv gun and set it to full-auto.
It should't be something that's basically a no-brainer for every big weapon fighter.
Make it like a dancing weapon: Need to use an action to activate, only lasts a couple of rounds.
I agree with KaeYoss, I like the animated and dancing properties, but the animated is just a bit too strong right now, simply making it work like the dancing property will bring it down to level enough that many PC's won't want to bring it around for the extra time it takes.
I'm fond of the dancing weapons and animated shields flavorwise. I'm just waiting for a chance to get a character with a dancing bladed scarf becuase I think that's a neat image. Personally the animated shield doesn't bother me, I tend to see it as an over sized ioun stone.
In my personal experience, I regret every allowing an animated shield in my game. A paladin in my game was focusing on a sword and board build only to switch to two handed once he got hold of animated shield. Not sure what was worse that he now high damage to go with super high AC or the fact his one handed feats were now being wasted due a single item.
|
|
Animated Shields present some other, rather silly problems. Why does an animated shield add to a wizard's spell failure chance, when an Animated Darkwood shield, or a dancing sword or a shield spell doesn't? Why doesn't an animated shield protect against touch attacks? Why don't larger sized animated shields grant a larger ac bonus? Can an Animated Bashing shield function like a dancing weapon? Does it still need the Wild enchancement to work in Wild Shape, and why?
Too much trouble, I say. Kill it, or make it an artifact.