[3.5] Shield of Bashing OP? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Simanos

2009-01-12, 05:48 PM

Fax Celesti, you make so many mistakes I won't even try to correct you.
The only people so far worthy of reply in this thread are Ericgrau and Keld Denar.

Ericgrau, that's interesting about the Tower Shield. Can you give me a link to the FAQ where it says that? And can you explain it more? In melee that means that if you're surrounded by 8 enemies (8 directions) you get total cover from 3 (or 1?)?

You're kinda right that +1d6 extra damage is usual for weapons for +1 cost. Though it's usually damage of energy type there are situations that favor it or are against it (compared to piercing damage). This is the best argument so far and has convinced me that "of Bashing" is balanced (from 1d6 to 2d6) until you go to Large size (then it gives 3d6 from 1d8). And after that it gives 4d6 from 2d6 (huge) and then from 3d6 to 6d6 (gargantuan) if you assume the existence of bigger than colossal category (heh:smallredface:).
So as the size increases the problem arises again. Personally I would give "of Bashing" an extra 1d6 bludgeoning damage and no size changes.
The crit suckiness is to accommodate the fact that you're not using an offensive weapon (as someone said "back-up" too). As I repeatedly said you don't have to enchant the weapon and shield aspects of the shield separately, only the weapon part. You use another defensive shield (or animated).

Your point about off-handed attacks is one I considered, but as a DM I would rule that it was written with the caveat that you are already using another weapon in your main hand. Frankly treating both hands as off-hand attacks with shields would fix (reduced number of attacks and STR damage bonus) this weird imbalance and the core text can be twisted to support it without much effort. Another good point, but I don't like it personally.

Imagine a basic Ranger_4. He has a Longsword+2 and Shortsword+2: +4/+4 @ 1d8+2/1d6+2 (double crit range though)
As I see it, if he had a Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing+1 and a Light one: +4/+4 @ 2d6+1/1d8+1 PLUS 2 extra AC if he has the Improved Shield Bash (easy, core) feat. (it would be +3/+3 and 3 extra AC if you left the +1 to AC instead of attack roll, it never goes to damage for shields though)
Any weapon combo can be matched by shields and not until you get an Animated Shield can the "Weapon_Ranger" even catch up a bit to the "Shield_Ranger". The problem is he should be clearly ahead in the first place! If I told you that weapon X does 1d6 damage, is martial and gives 2 AC with a feat, would you not consider X an OP martial weapon?
On second thought maybe I should rule that they are offhanded always as a start :smalltongue:
But even then the size problem remains. I'll change it to +1d6 too then.

Keld Denar, I know that Power Attack and Two-handers (and an Animated Shield) are considered optimal, but dual-wielding freaking shields shouldn't be near the top of the TWF builds. I'm comparing it to those OK? And to the weapon and board styles. Stop being smart-alecks.
Sword and board isn't the weakest combat style, it's just different (tanky) until you get (Animated Shields at least). And I know Shield Bonuses don't stack (though they kinda should, maybe), but you still get 2 or 3 free AC instead of ZERO like with the other choices (at least until A S again).

The way I see Tower Shields is like a forced Combat Expertise (lol) -2 to hit for +2 to AC (it gives +2 more than heavy shield). And don't patronize me. Of course defending and doing nothing will always lose, but you can always take mobile(!) cover and run away. Or defend while your friends blast the enemy. This 1-side you thing is what I want more info on please. Where can I read it?

PS: For The Snark, indeed it is the silliness and also read this...
"Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls. "

Illiterate Scribe

2009-01-12, 05:59 PM

It's balanced because without feat expenditure, you lose your shield bonus to AC when wielding a weapon. You also can't get double returns on Power Attack with it, like you could with a greatsword (or even a longsword!). It's also more expensive, since you have to enhance the spikes and the shield separately.

It's been a while since I played D&D of any flavour, but what's stopping you from wielding a shield two-handed? Strapping both forearms into the bracer behind the shield, and trying to batter your foes like some malfunctioning industrial robot?

Magnor Criol

2009-01-12, 06:01 PM

"Truly, you have a...dizzying intellect."

I'm not entirely positive I follow your logic here. However, I tend to get a bit confused when dealing with the shield enhancement rules; they're a tad fuzzy. A little later, when I have more time, I think I'm going to sit down and walk through them and see where that takes me, down your path or Fax's.

However, offhand I'm going to tell you straight up that I'm more inclined to believe Fax is right here. He has a lot more credentials, at least presentable, tangible credentials, in the analyzing-rules department. The fact that you simply dismiss his argument by saying you're simply going to ignore it strikes me as...well, rude and over-defensive. You give no reason to just disregard Fax like that, and for that matter, Fax hasn't given cause for that, either.

Fax Celestis

2009-01-12, 06:14 PM

Fax Celesti, you make so many mistakes I won't even try to correct you.

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

lord_khaine

2009-01-12, 06:22 PM

to start with you are wrong here

The way I read it "a shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC." So you could make that necessary +1 enhancement a shield starts with as a bonus to attack rolls instead of AC. At least it doesn't seem to give "+" bonuses to damage (does it?)
So a basic Heavy Shield with Spikes of Bashing gives +2 to hit, +1 to damage (2d6 base) for a mere 4000 gold, 2000 more to make it (or the spike?) Adamantine. That's the about the same as a Longsword+2.
What about enchanting it further with weapon properties like Sonic Burst or Thundering or whatever? Is that even possible?

if you make your +1 spiked shield of bashing, then for the price of 4k gold you would end up with a weapon that had +1 to hit and did 2d6+1 points of damage, and actet like a +1 shield in those rounds where you were not using it to bash people with.
there are no rules for moving the base +1 enchantment bonus of the shield to hit instead, so that will usualy be wastet.
also, even though the base damage is superior, then the critt chance will still be inferior to the 2 +1 longswords you could have gotten for allmost the same price.

edit.
btw Fax, isnt there a rule that says all posts have to be in english? that sounds a bit more like latin to me :smalltongue:

The_Snark

2009-01-12, 06:40 PM

PS: For The Snark, indeed it is the silliness and also read this...
"Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls. "

If you look at the text of the bashing special ability, the +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls you refer to comes from being treated as a +1 weapon. It's an enhancement bonus, meaning it does not stack with actual enhancement bonuses to the spikes. In other words, it saves you a couple thousand gold at low levels, but if you want a more powerful weapon you'll need to spend the full amount anyway.

As for being more powerful than than sword-and-board or two-weapon fighting rangers...

Sword-and-board: Yeah, it might well be more powerful to use two shields than a shield and a sword, sad to say. Shields and one-handed weapons simply aren't very good normally, and there's so little support for them compared with every other combat style that the style suffers when compared to most others.

It's not much more powerful, though; as I said, an extra 4,000 gold in exchange for a slightly higher base weapon damage.

Two-weapon fighting: Er, first remember that shield bonuses do not stack. You can have a shield bonus and an armor bonus; you can even have enhancement bonuses to both the shield and the armor, and have them both stack. Two shields, though, will not stack.

So it comes down to more or less the same advantage as with the previous case: better base damage, plus slightly cheaper shields. This use, though, does require Improved Shield Bash if you want to keep that AC advantage.

Illiterate Scribe

2009-01-12, 06:54 PM

Two-weapon fighting: Er, first remember that shield bonuses do not stack. You can have a shield bonus and an armor bonus; you can even have enhancement bonuses to both the shield and the armor, and have them both stack. Two shields, though, will not stack.

If you had an artificer on hand, you could keep using that infusion that lets you change the type of bonus you get. Would be a waste, though.

TempusCCK

2009-01-12, 07:00 PM

It's been a while since I played D&D of any flavour, but what's stopping you from wielding a shield two-handed? Strapping both forearms into the bracer behind the shield, and trying to batter your foes like some malfunctioning industrial robot?

Or just two handles in the back of the shield, Ala Goofy from Kingdom Hearts. It'd be an interesting fighting style for characters, but overall, not overpowered in any sense of the word.

shadowfox

2009-01-12, 07:14 PM

Note: I will refer to the shield-wielding fighter as "your character" or "your build." This is for simplicity purposes; I am not actually saying it's yours.

If you view it as broken, then that's your opinion. I'm not going to say that your views are wrong, only that I don't agree with them. By third level, a human fighter can have all of the feats that I mentioned above, and can even be wielding 2 masterwork bastard swords along with a masterwork buckler, costing 835 GP.

Your proposed Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing has a base cost of 4167-4180 GP (masterwork cost of shield and cost of adamantine spikes included), or 7030 for an Heavy Spiked Adamantine Shield of Bashing (I'm assuming you apply the weapon bonus cost; also including spikes as adamantine), which might be achieved at 5th or 6th level for either shield, but most likely won't in either case (the second shield is too expensive to have at such an early level, unless you sell EVERYTHING else you have). And since the shield itself is enchanted as an armor, the enchantment doesn't transfer into an attack bonus (at least that's how it's always seemed to me), sans the special "+1 to attack when shield bashing with this shield" from the Bashing enchantment. And then you have to enchant the spikes separately. Then you want a second shield for AC, costing you more, and then you want to go into Two-Weapon Fighting, in which case you'll get a third shield for AC or take the Improved Shield Bash feat.

A third shield, without argument, is a complete waste. I can see a character using 2 shields from a fluff-perspective; in fact, I've seen a player-created prestige class focusing around dual-wielding shields. Three is just insane, and expensive.

But, damage-wise, I can come up with worse:

Monkey Grip (Bastard Sword) [from Complete Warrior]
Exoitic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)

Assuming it's a medium-sized creature, it dishes out more damage than a greatsword (2d8) while keeping an a Shield Bonus to AC, all at a -2 penalty to attack. I can think of some other things that I could do with this, such as dual-wielding bastard swords (Two Weapon Fighting feats, Monkey Grip, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting (Complete Adventurer) (allows one-handed weapon in off-hand to count as light weapon when determining two-weapon fighting penalties)), and the Improved Buckler Defense feat (Complete Warrior) (allows you to apply the buckler's AC bonus when attacking with off-hand weapon).

There. With a few more feats, a fighter can wreak havoc on the battlefield (and spend less than or the same amount of money doing it). If this fighter has the Powerful Build racial ability (such as a Feral Gargun), then they don't even need Monkey Grip; he can use Large-sized Bastard Swords, so he doesn't need to take the feat (if he takes all of the monster levels, though, he's still behind on BAB by 2, so it has the same affect, but he still saves a feat).

But your build has one weakness that mine doesn't:

Antimagic Fields

Your tri-shielded hero's ability to fight, however, is greatly diminished in the same anti-magic field. No bonuses to attack, other than those granted from masterwork properties, and he also takes a -4 penalty for dual-wielding in combat, and has a -2 armor class penalty from the shields alone. Depending on the material of the shields, we're looking at 15-20 pounds on each arm, and since I doubt you'd leave you're Animated Shield on the ground, that's another 15-20 pounds on your back. So, you can hit as easily, but it's easier to get hit. Even you're dual-shielded hero with the Improved Shield Bash feat is at a slight disadvantage.

My 3rd level Fighter build? Sure, he takes -4 to attacks from Monkey Grip and Two-Weapon Fighting, but he can dual-wield his bastard swords anywhere, dishing out 2 attacks of 2d8+Str Mod of damage, and still gets the AC bonus of his buckler (while, at the same time, not taking any penalties to attack or Armor Class Penalties from it, as it's masterwork). He'll waltz into the Antimagic Field and start swinging.

In short, if both of our characters are medium-sized, then my character can dish out 2d8+Str Mod with a single attack, and yours 2d6+Str Mod. Even with dual-wielding, my character dishes out more damage on average, and with same attack penalty. By the time your shield build can afford 2 shields of the same type, along with Improved Shield Bash, I would have already taken Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword)), Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword), Greater Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword), and, quite possibly, Greater Weapon Specialization (Bastard Sword); however, in all honesty, your shield fighter might also have those feats, but attuned to the shields.

Even in the long run, My character's easier to maintain financially-wise. I don't go for fancy materials for weapons, and there's no point in making the buckler of any special material. And this comparison is assuming you don't make your shields out of any special material.

And these costs include nothing other than the shield and weapon costs. No armor, no other items. Nothing.

In short, my build can dish out a great deal of damage, at an earlier level, and, depending on the two- or three-shield build, can or will be more cost-effective than yours. It also weighs my fighter down more than it does your character.

If this shield-thing is broken, than you must think that my fighter build is broken as well. And mine's by the books, just like yours.

All I'm saying is that there are worse things out there. Now, as a DM, I can always deny such a build. Also, there are things that can be done to take care of balancing problems. I can always veto an idea.

As for using a shield two-handed, well... That's a different story. If the shield uses the Spartan-derived strap system (2 straps), then I'd rule no. If there's only a single gripping point, then yes. But, then again, shields with 1 strap/gripping point shouldn't exist by the medieval era, since it's technologically inferior to the 2-strap system, so, personally, I wouldn't need to worry about such an issue.

Last-minute inclusion: Dude, be nice. We're taking our time to respond, and it's rude to insult everyone. Plus, being on a high-horse doesn't help either.

Keld Denar

2009-01-12, 07:27 PM

Ok, dude, I'm gonna level with you, because you obviously have a lot to learn about the power curve in D&D. Try not to take this as offense, but I'm gonna cover a lot of topics rather quickly. If you have any questions about what I'm about to say, ask.

RE: Two Weapon Fighting with shields:
Base weapon damage has almost no consideration when determining weapon choice for TWF. Really, the difference between 1d4 (daggers), 1d6 (short swords), or your 2d6/1d8 duel shield combination means a grand daddy total of what, 3? 4? points of damage per hit. Compared to the 20-30 or so damage you are going to be added for other things, like sneak attack, bard song, dex mod (with Shadow Blade), Skirmish, weapon enhancements from Greater Magic Weapon, Knowledge Devotion or a host of other factors. Hell, the +2 dmg from WEAPON SPECIALIZATION, generally considered an unopitimized feat, almost makes up the difference. Weapon choice means almost nothing for TWF. If you don't have bonus damage while TWF, you are doing it wrong, and going from 1d6 to 2d6 base damage is hardly considered bonus damage. The top of TWF generally involves Daring Outlaw Rogues, Swift Hunter Rangers, TWF Bardblades, Jack B Quick double hitters, and a really neato Cloistered Cleric build TLN built over on the CharOps boards that uses the Holy Warrior Reserve feat, Knowledge Devotion, and some other shanananananananagens to crank out some sick damage. Your idea doesn't even compare with the damage they can crank out. Clearly then its not OP.

RE: Size catagory abuse:
Size catagory abuse is well known, and well documented, and there are MUCH better ways to do it than with a shield. There are weapons out there like Minotaur Greathammer or others that are much better suited. Actually, base Unarmed damage is probably the single most abuseable factor. Start with a little Monk (or UA Swordsage) base, take Superior Unarmed Strike, Improved Natural Weapon, and a couple levels in Fist of the Forest, and you are already swinging around a hamfist with somewhere in the neighborhood of 4d6...at medium size. A little Psychic Warrior augemented Expansion to get to huge and I've already outsized your shield without even trying. There are still a half dozen other things that could increase more. Size abuse isn't just limited to your shield, and there are a ton of ways to do it better. Clearly then its not OP.

Regarding Sword and Board not sucking:
No, S&B sucks. Its been debated here, its been debated on CharOp, and its been debated on Brilliant Gameologist. Its bad. The only time EVER to use a shield is at level 1-2 when the +2 AC actually matters and enemies HPs are so low you can 1shot them with a longsword instead of a greatsword, at the time when you aquire an Animated Shield (which receives a Magic Vestiment from your Cleric), and in a very few very specialized builds that are a heluva lot more optimized than some little ranger4 DWing shields. The only actual S&B builds that even remotly work involve ToB, and then with the bonus damage from Strikes, your average damage increase of a couple of points hardly breaks the build. Clearly then its not OP.

So, just about every reason why you've stated that Bashing shields are OP as weapons, I've debunked. If anything, its only SLIGHTLY up the power curve from a Heavy Mace, although not without an associated cost. Also, if I was you, I'd think twice before outright insulting highly established members of this board. They don't make just anyone a Titan in the Playground. Thats just bad form. My suggestion, lurk a bit more till you figure out exactly what "OP" really is, and then if you come to use with a good idea, we'll probably take it with a lot more grace. Sorry if I've been overly critical, I'm just trying to make you aware of the reality of what really is and isn't OP. Best of luck!

EDIT:
ok, I just gotta...

But, damage-wise, I can come up with worse:

Monkey Grip (Bastard Sword) [from Complete Warrior]
Exoitic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword)

Assuming it's a medium-sized creature, it dishes out more damage than a greatsword (2d8) while keeping an a Shield Bonus to AC, all at a -2 penalty to attack. I can think of some other things that I could do with this, such as dual-wielding bastard swords (Two Weapon Fighting feats, Monkey Grip, Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting (Complete Adventurer) (allows one-handed weapon in off-hand to count as light weapon when determining two-weapon fighting penalties)), and the Improved Buckler Defense feat (Complete Warrior) (allows you to apply the buckler's AC bonus when attacking with off-hand weapon).

You just got schooled by DUELWIELDING MONKEYGRIPPED BASTARD SWORDS. Sorry, but being out damaged by possibly the WORST possible idea for melee combat is just...wow. I mean....wow. Sorry man, you got a lot to learn about the term OP. I don't have anything more to say...lulz.

Simanos

2009-01-12, 07:58 PM

It's been a while since I played D&D of any flavour, but what's stopping you from wielding a shield two-handed? Strapping both forearms into the bracer behind the shield, and trying to batter your foes like some malfunctioning industrial robot?
Even if a DM allows shield bashes to be offhanded attacks only with your offhand and main attacks in your main (I would, normally), I seriously doubt he's gonna allow two-handing a shield, unless it was specially and painstakingly (read: penalties, cost, angst) built for that and only that. Actually in old D&D 1st edition (really old) there was a two-handed "attack" shield. Maybe it was called Sword-Shield. I'm pretty sure there was a medium attack shield (maybe dagger-shield) and I had a character who used 2 small attack shields called Knife-Shields. It was pretty efficient too.

ericgrau

2009-01-12, 08:19 PM

Regarding Sword and Board not sucking:
No, S&B sucks. Its been debated here, its been debated on CharOp, and its been debated on Brilliant Gameologist. Its bad.
No, no it doesn't. And it keeps on being debated b/c people still disagree. If it were really one sided, a newbie would post about it once every month or two, immediately get corrected, and the thread would be over in a couple posts. Nothing could be further from the truth. One side fights by arrogantly declaring victory from the very start, while the other actually tries to make a case. So this time I'm not gonna say anything beyond "No, no it doesn't" until I see some hard numbers or the like from the other side, not just anecdotal evidence. I have yet to see that even once. Now that would be something if it ever happened.

The same goes for all the other hot topics that span 50 thread pages.

Simanos

2009-01-12, 08:34 PM

...
I already covered his arguments previously, he just repeated them or made more fallacious arguments. What I wrote to the others was already a big wall of text. Enough of that. I understand you want to lick your friend's "thing" here, but your post offered nothing in this thread and I will not reply to anyone else who post something similar. Consider this a blanket statement reply to all.

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
Stop projecting dude :smalltongue:
(probably no one will get this, but I hope you do)

Lord_khaine, you have a good point (as you can see I'm not unreasonable, I conceded previous points too, like the crit thing). However the rules on "attack" shields can be read either way. Unless you can provide me with a good Source (I'd love it) that says otherwise it's up to the DM. And anyway it's only an extra +1 to attack and not to damage.

The_Snark, how sure are you about what you say? It doesn't sound wrong, I'd just like some more support for your idea (and Lord_khaine's). Though I wasn't going to stack more "pluses" anyway. It's a waste on the shield since it only give to hit bonus and not damage (right? pls comment). I would go for things like flaming and/or shock burst and other stuff. In 3.5 +1 is usually all you need, unlike in 3.0 (or just NWN?) where +5 bypassed a LOT more damage reductions.
I know 2 shields do not stack, but that's still +2 (or +3) AC more for free compared to a Ranger using 2 swords. (I wonder if Two Weapon Defense can be abused too).
My main point is not that it is "imba". But that it is too good for what it "looks" like. I mean just compare it to a stupid shortspear, the honored weapon of the hoplites.

TempusCCK, a human can wield a Large Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing doing 3d6. A Greatsword does only 2d6...
Ridiculous.

Shadowfox, your post does not make any sense.
You don't mention anything above.
Compare costs of similar things. Adamantine +2 shields with adamantine +2 swords.
Monkey Grip + Bastard Sword = 2d8
Monkey Grip + "my" Shield = 3d6
You lose again. And I'm sticking to Core guys, cause I dislike the imba that is usually introduced in later books, so fanboys will go out and buy them.
I get your point about Anti-Magic Fields, but how exactly does cause my guy -2 AC penalty? And how does your guy get +STR on his offhand sword and not 1/2. And you're still 2 AC down on my guy. And read the freaking Buckler info again noob:
"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round."

Simanos

2009-01-12, 08:50 PM

blah blah blah
I was not rude to you, in fact I used the word please at some point. I also countered your arguments that I could and that's about it. Why did you explode? Your new post doesn't add much, it just repeats the same mistakes we've seen in this thread.
Let me make it clear to you again. I'm not just worried about the imba of the "shields". I'm concerned that a Ranger with a Shortspear is not even marginally better than one with "my" shields (and it gets worse with size). And it gets free (comparatively) AC too. I wanted shield bashing to be clearly weaker than a tested war weapon like that. But it's not even equal in attack. It's worse. And it is worse in defense too.

BTW, Animated Shield costs +2 so you are behind a S&B guy. But I admit it puts a big dent to it and I'm considering not allowing the "Animated" property. It's rather silly anyway. Even more than "Dancing" weapons.

LOL How about a Dancing Shield of Bashing HAHAHA!

PS: Spare me your argumentums ad populum or numerum or verecundiam

Ericgrau, Thanks for the support on that. Though I already said that I consider "Animated" wounds the S&B style critically.
Hmm, perhaps my problem is that spiked shields are 1d6 already or that there's no equivalent to "of Bashing" property for weapons. Or maybe the spiked size increase shouldn't stack with the bashing ones.

Keld Denar

2009-01-12, 08:53 PM

OK, everyone BUT ericgrau on this board, CharOp, and Brilliant Gameologists agree that S&B is the weakest fighting style. Seriously, the extra 7 points of AC you gain mean literally nothing at the sacrifice of easily 20 damage per hit. And if you are spending feats on it, then you could also be doing something else with them, which will provide even more defensive benefit than a shield.

And in a world where Animated Shields exist...seriously. Why intentionally gimp yourself when you can pay a little cash to make up for it? The damage you lose isn't worth it. And again, if you are pumping a bunch of feats into it, I can name as many feats that will either increase your fighting ability, or decrease your weakness better.

Only at very low levels, namedly 1 and 2, is a shield worth it. At that level, you can reliably kill most things in 1 hit with a long sword, and the AC bump is meaningful. Higher than that, though, its just not worth it. I'd rather drop a foe in 1-2 rounds than have him beat on me for 3 with an AC only 2-3 points higher. This is especially true in a smaller party, where you are expected to pull a higher portion of the damage.

Seriously, if you want to do this, put together a sword and board fighter, use whatever official WotC products you want and start a new thread. We'll compare your damage with mine, your AC with mine, and how many rounds it takes an appropriate CRed monster to drop each of our character, and how many rounds it takes our characters to drop that foe. Whatever level you want, other than 1-2, because I and others have already conceded that those levels tend to be better due to the reasons I've stated above. Only rule, you have to use your shield on your arm. Otherwise, you are just another 2handed wielder with an animated shield, and the scenario means nothing.

EDIT:

Let me make it clear to you again. I'm not just worried about the imba of the "shields". I'm concerned that a Ranger with a Shortspear is not even marginally better than one with "my" shields (and it gets worse with size). And it gets free (comparatively) AC too. I wanted shield bashing to be clearly weaker than a tested war weapon like that. But it's not even equal in attack. It's worse. And it is worse in defense too.

Um, did you even read the title of your post? Looks like "[3.5] Shield of Bashing OP?" to me. As I've stated, they clearly are not, and backed it up with examples of different builds that make the damage you gain from using Bashing Shields trivial. OP means Over-Powered, or stronger by far than any other option. Using a Bashing Shield as a primary weapon is a marginal damage increase for a cost only used by the most inferior weapon style (Sword & Board). Now, if you increased the base damage by 5 or 10 points, you might have something that would be considered "Powered" but probably not even OP at that point. So, either quit soap boxing about how what you've discovered is amazing beyond all reasonable comprehension, OR show me some damage numbers that flat out blow away any other possible weapon use.

Simanos

2009-01-12, 09:03 PM

Wall of Text
Seriously, stop making up sh1t.
I'm reasonable. I already said S&B is lacking. I said it gets screwed by "Animated" Shields. But it's still situational (and DM controlled). But "easily 20 damage per hit" more is BS. If you had said per round maybe. Or if you add that you might hit less cause of the Power Attack. Unless you're killing helpless mooks...
If you want we will do your encounter challenge, but include a party of at least one more healer than our meat machines. And do half a dozen encounters for a given day (and spells). You know, like how it ACTUALLY is in D&D.
Again, please stick to comparing "my" char to a TWF similar char or a S&B. Otherwise you are arguing ALL those chars have no reason to exist and the game needs to be heavily rebalanced and nerf two-hander mechanics.

Mushroom Ninja

2009-01-12, 09:09 PM

Again, please stick to comparing "my" char to a TWF similar char or a S&B.

I think Rogue with two daggers has you beat on damage output.

shadowfox

2009-01-12, 09:23 PM

Shadowfox, your post does not make any sense.
You don't mention anything above.
Compare costs of similar things. Adamantine +2 shields with adamantine +2 swords.
Monkey Grip + Bastard Sword = 2d8
Monkey Grip + "my" Shield = 3d6
You lose again. And I'm sticking to Core guys, cause I dislike the imba that is usually introduced in later books, so fanboys will go out and buy them.
I get your point about Anti-Magic Fields, but how exactly does cause my guy -2 AC penalty? And how does your guy get +STR on his offhand sword and not 1/2. And you're still 2 AC down on my guy. And read the freaking Buckler info again noob:
"This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round."

I'll address this one at a time...

Not mentioning anything above my post: what point was there? Everything else that I could think of was taken, and no one had posted an alternate "OP."

-2 Armor Class Penalty: Sorry, I meant "armor check penalty." I do apologize.

Costs I offered: There's no point in comparing the cost of something YOU suggested to something that I DIDN'T suggest. I was merely stating that, with a level 3 human fighter, I could dish out more damage for a lesser cost. I'll admit that when I said it was easier on the pockets, I was referring to a more immediate future, but it is still cheaper initially. However, if you wish...
one +2 Heavy Adamantine Shield= 7020 GP
one +2 Heavy Adamantine Bastard Sword= 11035 GP
So you are, in deed, correct in an argument I wasn't even trying to make. However, assuming you want both the spikes and the shield to be both adamantine and +2, then I offer the following cost:
one +2 Heavy Adamantine Shield with +2 Adamantine Spikes= 13030 GP.

Sticking to Core: By technicality, you have already left "core" at least twice: suggesting Powerful Build (I fail to see it in the Monster Manual) and applying the use of "Monkey Grip" to a heavy shield. Plus, you never said to stick to core to begin with. It's your own fault if you get non-core answers. But, even then, why spend a feat to wield a shield of one size-category larger? Increased weight takes effect, and the -2 penalty to attack is still -2. Plus, you're thinking of dual wielding. Why deal with a -6 penalty to attack?

But, for the sake of argument, a single +2 enchanted large-sized bastard sword can still do more damage than a single +2 enchanted large-sized heavy shield... if you want to count pennies. Simple math (for argument's sake, Str Mod is +4):
one Large-sized +1 Heavy Shield of Bashing= 3d6+1+4 (generates a number from 8-23; average roll= 15.5)
one Large-sized +1 Bastard Sword of Flaming: 2d8+1d6+1+4 (generates a number from 8-27; average roll= 17.5)
OR
2d8+1d6+1+6 (generates a number from 10-29; average roll= 19.5)

Though, I do have to admit that I'm going with your "statement" that a large-sized Heavy Shield of Bashing deals 3d6 damage (as you did not specify whether it was spiked or not), and I'm quite fishy about it to begin with, as you seem slightly out of touch with... Well, you're brain, mostly.

The Buckler information: You are quite correct, my friend. Bravo! You completely ignored the fact that I know what I'm talking about! So, for simplicity, I'll put the feat here:
Improved Buckler Defense [General]
You can attack with an off-hand weapon while retaining a buckler's shield bonus to your Armor Class.

Prerequisite: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: When you attack with a weapon in your off-hand, you may still apply your buckler's shield bonus to your Armor Class.
Normal: Without this feat, a character wielding a buckler who attacks with an off-hand weapon uses the buckler's shield bonus until his or her next turn.
Special: A fighter may select Improved Buckler Defense as one of his fighter bonus feats.

I would like to point out, however, that I posted exactly what that feat does in my post.

and the Improved Buckler Defense feat (Complete Warrior) (allows you to apply the buckler's AC bonus when attacking with off-hand weapon).

Full Str Mod to off-hand attacks: Sorry, if you haven't noticed, I put a lot of typing into the one post. That, and I'm used to being in campaign where it's house ruled that off-hand attacks get full Str bonus, so I'm sorry if something I'm so terribly used to slips through a filter. I'm also sorry if a few things slipped by.

For your snide AC comment: My character technically isn't 2 behind on AC. In fact, I have more than enough money for armor at 3rd level. You keep assuming, however, that your character has all other items. At 3rd level, before you can even afford your bashing adamantine shields, I'm dishing out at least 2d8+ 1* or 1.5* Str Mod damage a hit, wearing armor, and using a masterwork buckler. If your shield-wielding scrimps and saves, spending on nothing and using nothing more than giveaways, he shouldn't have it until 5th level, and he won't survive that long.

-------------------

Look, I was just saying that there's "worse" out there, and I even gave your argument the advantage of magic. Don't be sore/a hypocrit.

Also, READ the posts. You'll learn more.

ericgrau

2009-01-12, 09:28 PM

OK, everyone BUT ericgrau on this board, CharOp, and Brilliant Gameologists agree that S&B is the weakest fighting style.
No.

I'll state expressly what I implied before. Threads on such topics go to 50 pages of length b/c several people are debating them and continue to debate them. If it were one sided there wouldn't be debates, there would only be clarifications to newbies.

Likewise it seems you're getting called out on a lot of other false claims. Have fun writing, I'm gonna go play WoW or something :smallsmile:. See previous post regarding any other info.

Random NPC

2009-01-12, 09:33 PM

Seriously, stop making up sh1t.
But "easily 20 damage per hit" more is BS.

It's not. I've seen it.

Really, Shield of Bashing is not OP considered the wealth and possible feats. It's suboptimal. Check Character Optimization board at Wizard's forum and you'll see BROKEN.

Keld Denar

2009-01-12, 09:34 PM

Seriously, stop making up sh1t.
I'm reasonable. I already said S&B is lacking. I said it gets screwed by "Animated" Shields. But it's still situational (and DM controlled). But "easily 20 damage per hit" more is BS. If you had said per round maybe. Or if you add that you might hit less cause of the Power Attack. Unless you're killing helpless mooks...

What have I made up? Cite me something. I guess you've never played D&D above level 4. PA is THE way to kill stuff fast at higher levels. There are just so many ways to make the already good PA even better. And in pure Core, shields suck even more, because you don't have access to things like Agile Shield Fighter, or Shield Ward, which are MAYBE the only things that make having a shield good. And then only marginally, and could easily be served with an animated shield.

If you want we will do your encounter challenge, but include a party of at least one more healer than our meat machines. And do half a dozen encounters for a given day (and spells). You know, like how it ACTUALLY is in D&D.
Too many variables. A more pure simulation would be to give both characters something like a +3 bard song, a Prayer, and a Haste. No healers, as in combat its dumb to heal, and out of combat, healing comes easy enough with a Wand of Lesser Vigor or a Healing Belt, or one of the dozen other times WotC developed so that players are not hamstrung by lacking a cleric.

Again, please stick to comparing "my" char to a TWF similar char or a S&B. Otherwise you are arguing ALL those chars have no reason to exist and the game needs to be heavily rebalanced and nerf two-hander mechanics.
Thats the thing...with a few exceptions, S&B and TWF ARE suboptimial. Sure you can play them, but don't come crying to me when you are getting out damaged by the rogue, or the cleric, or anyone else. The primary role of melee is to do damage, and soak damage. If you can't do both, you should really rethink your priorities as a character. I optimize, and my friends optimize, so that no one has to carry the others through every combat. Sure, in some combats, one character may shine more, but in general, everyone pulls their weight. If you can't pull your weight, you are dead weight, and my DM optimizes his combat encounters enough that dead weight often ends up costing everyone 5k gold in diamond dust. Now, not every DM plays this way, and not every group plays this way, and sometimes its fun for everyone to play slightly suboptimal, but regardless, what you've discovered is hardly considered OP in an optimized game, and is barely considered "strong" in a non-optimized game. Thats my benchmark for OP, and your shield idea isn't even on the scale.

We have a saying where I play "Friends don't let friends TWF without a source of bonus damage."

Random NPC

2009-01-12, 09:53 PM

...Agile Shield Fighter...
Now I can see this going somewhere...

Improved Shield Bash, Shield Specialization (Heavy), Agile Shield Fighting.

Grab two "OP Shield of Bashing" shields. Wielding two 2d6 weapons on a feeble -2 to both of the attack rolls.

Talk about OP... now you can almost do as much damage as a level 5 rogue!

Keld Denar

2009-01-12, 10:10 PM

Improved Shield Bash, Shield Specialization (Heavy), Agile Shield Fighting.

Don't forget about TWF and Oversized TWF for using 2 Heavy Shields....

Hmmm, 5 feats to be sub par with an "OP" shield. Lets see, what about 5 feats to not be sub par....

Power Attack
Improved Bull Rush
Shock Trooper
Leap Attack
Skill Focus(Profession: Underwater Basket Weaving)

Use a Greatsword in both hands...heck, use a Longsword in 2 hands, you'll still do more damage.

The last one was thrown on because the first 4 were enough to more than make my point.

Or would it be Craft: Underwater Basket Weaving? I always get those confused.

woodenbandman

2009-01-12, 10:14 PM

I'm going to assume that the OP is trolling because I do that by default as a result of years of browsing guitar forums.

However:

that extra d6? It's only giving you an average of 3.5 damage. At a -2 to hit. Now take that same -2 to hit with power attack and a great sword, and you've suddenly averaged more damage than your shield guy.

Oh, what's that? You're only level 1? Oh, gee, I'm sorry, well if that's the case, not only can you not afford the shield in question, but you also can't afford to take a penalty to hit on anything, ever. Hits are good at low levels.

So there you have it, in every case, your "OP" large shield has been outdamaged by a more traditional use of feats and weapons. However, if you insist on beating the horse of maximum damage into the ground, then I have no choice but to concede. You have managed to become as effective as a rogue wielding a greatsword. Without proficiency.

Mushroom Ninja

2009-01-12, 10:14 PM

Or would it be Craft: Underwater Basket Weaving? I always get those confused.

I think it's Craft: Basket Weaving. If you get really good, you can weave them underwater. :smallbiggrin:

Fizban

2009-01-12, 10:36 PM

Late to the party and slightly off topic, but I'd like too see a dated reference to the tower shield cover limitation as well. I know it specifically only worked from one direction in 3.0, but in 3.5 it no longer has the restriction. I assume they got rid of it because it was one of the few mechanics that required facing, just as the got rid of having to orient your shield spell (which also used to only work in one direction). If you can get your dex and shield bonus against an opponent on any side of you while surrounded, then it don't think it's hard to imagine that going full defense with a shield as big as you are would provide full cover against all attacks.

If you want to houserule it of course, then flankers and/or readied attacks could probably get past it, but if you do that it opens up a whole can of interrupting attack worms.

Incidentally, I just realized something: contrary to what I thought before, you could use a tower shield to block rays and orbs: full cover blocks touch attacks too, even if they can use targeted spells by targeting the shield.

Simanos

2009-01-13, 01:18 PM

Simanos

2009-01-13, 01:27 PM

Keld Denar, just quit while you're ahead mate...

It seems to me you are used to one type of game and you cannot even imagine of different playstyles and DMs (and encounters). Hence you spout nonsense like "no healers, as in combat its dumb to heal" and the rest of your crap.

Let's say "S&B and TWF ARE suboptimial". Would it make sense even then that if a player decides to make a char with those styles (for whatever reasons) the shield bashing style is one of the best? No.
And yet even you say "friends don't let friends TWF without a source of bonus damage", which seems to imply that TWF builds CAN be made to work.
Hypocrite...

Simanos

2009-01-13, 01:31 PM

...
I believe your bridge is that way...

PS: Can anyone answer Fizban's points?

Illiterate Scribe

2009-01-13, 03:07 PM

By the way, Simanos, even if you're not going to take the advice people have been offering about adopting a slightly less combative, aggressive tone, you might at least want to avoid triple-posting. Use the edit button to combine your posts, and the thread will be much easier on the eyes.

lilhowie624

2009-01-13, 04:20 PM

i would like to apologize in advace here...
*sigh* ok this is easy to debate. ill use simple statistics and point out why its not worth doing.
str 18+4
con 16+3
dex 14+2
int 8-1
wis 10+0
cha 6-2

ok those were my stats heres my break down
lvl 1 toon assumed here

no feats
great sword 2d6+6=12
attack bonus 1 + 4 =5
av ac per monster 15
hit 50%
crit 10%

ok after 20 attacks i get a total avg dmg of 10 hits and 2 crits
168dmg

ok your toon
imp shield bash
bashing shield 2d6+5 =11.5
attack bonus 1+4 = 5
av ac per monster 15
hit 50%
crit 5%

after 20 attacks you get total avg dmg of 10 hits 1 crit
138dmg

two weapon fighting
two weapon fighting
short sword / short sword 1d6/1d6= 3.5/3.5
attack bonus 1+4-2=3
av acper monster 15
hit 40% and 40%
crit 10% and 10%

after 20 attacks the total avg dmg of 16hits and 4crits
84dmg

any questions?

Keld Denar

2009-01-13, 05:12 PM

Let's say "S&B and TWF ARE suboptimial". Would it make sense even then that if a player decides to make a char with those styles (for whatever reasons) the shield bashing style is one of the best? No.
And yet even you say "friends don't let friends TWF without a source of bonus damage", which seems to imply that TWF builds CAN be made to work.

{Scrubbed} Allow me to quote:

RE: Two Weapon Fighting with shields:
Base weapon damage has almost no consideration when determining weapon choice for TWF. Really, the difference between 1d4 (daggers), 1d6 (short swords), or your 2d6/1d8 duel shield combination means a grand daddy total of what, 3? 4? points of damage per hit. Compared to the 20-30 or so damage you are going to be added for other things, like sneak attack, bard song, dex mod (with Shadow Blade), Skirmish, weapon enhancements from Greater Magic Weapon, Knowledge Devotion or a host of other factors.
<snip>
The top of TWF generally involves Daring Outlaw Rogues, Swift Hunter Rangers, TWF Bardblades, Jack B Quick double hitters, and a really neato Cloistered Cleric build TLN built over on the CharOps boards that uses the Holy Warrior Reserve feat, Knowledge Devotion, and some other shanananananananagens to crank out some sick damage.

Most important statement is bolded so you have a tougher time ignoring it.
So...am I still a hypocrite? All of those builds have some source of bonus damage, from Sneak Attack, to Dragonfire Inspiration, to Knowledge Devotion, to Skirmish, or any number of things. You NEED bonus damage to get TWF to work, just relying on base weapon damage is gonna leave you stuck in the mud.

Except in specialized builds, TWF and S&B are suboptimal. Those builds don't rely on individual weapon damage for more than ~10% of their damage per round. Almost no builds rely on base weapon damage for most of their damage. Sorry, but your increase in base damage just isn't powerful, much less over powered. It might be appropriate for the cost paid (what, about ~4k gold?)

Oh, and unless you go abusing size modifiers, guess what gives an equivalent damage increase for about 4k gold? MIC has Armbands of Might, they give +2 damage when you PA for at least 2. Now the Greatsword is doing 2d6+2 so long as I PA for at least 2, which you should almost always at least be doing. Are Armbands of Might also OP, since for the same price, they give a similar increase in damage? Heck, they should be even more OP, since they also give +4 on all str checks like trips and grapples. Also from MIC, Gauntlets of War, give +3 damage when you are wielding the favored weapon of a god with the war domain. Well, thats not hard to find for almost all martial weapons. Are Gauntlets of War OP?

shadowfox

2009-01-13, 06:13 PM

Shadowfox, you said:
"By third level, a human fighter can have all of the feats that I mentioned above, "
But that was the first paragraph of your first post here so "above" was nowhere to be found. :smalltongue:
That's what I meant in my reply. Look it up.
That Buckler feat is not Core, I could not even find it in the SRD. I would maybe allow it (big maybe), but it's description has a word error. Check it out. It says "uses" instead of "loses". Amateurish...
If you typed it from a (splatter) book then it's OK (you can make mistakes), but if you copy-pasted from somewhere then...
Still that still leaves you 1 AC and 1 more feat behind.

Seriously, your calculations are fine. But what bothers me is that when you use a Longsword instead of the Bastard Sword (or sudder a Shortspear), you can easily see that it becomes silly. I'm not saying "of Bashing" is OP because it is the best damager. I'm saying it's OP because it nearly puts to shame TRUE offensive weapons like the Longsword (same average). It shouldn't even be near them.

Also note that you could compare a Sword+2 and a Flaming Sword+1 (same price). So (to-hit/damage) 0/+1d6 is about equal to +1/+1. "Of Bashing" gives roughly +1/(+1+1d6) so I think it should be +2 cost OR it should only give +1d6 damage. If you size up it becomes even better, so I would stick it to 1d6 instead of loony size alterations.
Do you get my point now?
This is probably my decision. It gives +1d6 damage and no bonuses to hit. The base +1 enhancement of the shield that is needed (before of bashing) goes to AC or to attack roll, crafter's choice. It's always considered a magic weapon.

Firstly, I will say these to things: that post had a major revision done to it, where I switched paragraphs around. Needless to say, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the feats I was referring to happened to be the ones I mentioned a tiny bit later on. Secondly, I copied the feat myself, and I'm sorry that I have Asperger's Syndrome and have difficulty copying things down word-for-word. Given the length, I'm surprised I didn't make any more mistakes. Now, to correct myself here, and to do something that your common sense should have done, well... You already quoted the normal course of events when attacking with your off-hand while also having a buckler strapped to it.

Now, as for the feat, I assure you, it's in the Complete Warrior, and the feat is called Improved Buckler Defense, and it on page 100 in the bottom left-hand corner. I'd scan the page for proof, but I don't have access to a scanner right now. Maybe if someone else can step in and say that my feat really does exist.

As for your comment on being behind in AC by 1, that's not true. For the same enchantment cost as your hypothetical +1 Shield of Bashing, I'd simply give the buckler a +2 enchantment. Also, since I can afford it, I'd also have armor.

I would like to say, however, that your paranoia is uncalled for. You see, people normally don't see shields as offensive weapons. The shield bash is, more-or-less, an emergency attack. Now, you also have to consider the absurdity of your paranoia: a plain +1 Heavy Shield of Bashing costs from 4157-4170. At the earliest, a character could, in theory, get such an item sometime during 4th level, but they'd have little to nothing else.

Which makes the entire situation unrealistic.

A character isn't supposed to have one, single uber-powerful weapon. Even if the characters start off at 4th level, if memory serves correctly, you can spend up to 30% of your starting gold on a single item. Now, for arguement's sake, let's say it is 30%. That means that, if the characters were to start off at that level, this hypothetical shield basher would need to enter the campaign at 7th level. THAT is when you can call AC into question.

But still, the Bashing enchantment, in my opinion, isn't broken at all. You're just looking at what it CAN do, and reacting based on that. I've proven that, financially, you should be more concerned about a Monkey-Gripped Bastard Sword, which can easily be bought at a much earlier level (in theory, first level).

Now, as for what you decide as a DM, that's your opinion. However, might I suggest that you read over what everyone has contributed carefully? Your proposed alterations to the Bashing enchantment break it not once, not twice, but three times.
1) You're giving it damage so that has a lesser effect as the shield gets larger in size, but it's more of a benefit when the shield gets smaller.

2) You're making it into a cheaper version of Flaming/Frost/Shocking enchantments, which, in turn, gives a reason NOT give the shield spikes.

3) By making the enchantment bonus apply to either attack or defense, you open a massive loophole (by technicality). You see, by doing so, you're saying that the shield itself can be enchanted as a weapon, and, since a shield is technically armor, it's not a stretch to say that you're enchanting it at a lower cost. Therefore, you technically open up the ability for the shield to be given Flaming, Frost, and/or Shocking enchantments on top of it (and, again, since it's armor, it's cheaper to do, too). Throw in Spikes and enchant them, and you've got a one-handed powerhouse that's even more powerful than what you originally feared.

On the other hand (but, strangely enough, a bit more of a stretch when looked at as a technicality), it could also easily be interpreted as that the shield can be enchanted both as a weapon and a shield, where, although it would still cost quite a bit, you essentially save someone the trouble of having to purchase spikes for the shield later on.
-------------------
You overlook a lot of things, and overthink others. If you really don't like the enchantment, than just tell your PCs that they can't buy it. Plus, that's when, if they really want to play a character that focuses on shield-bashing, they get a spiked shield and take the weapon damage enchantments. More costly, but you're back to square one: shields being too powerful.

Now, a final word:
You forget about the costs involved with the hypothetical shields you're proposing. Hell, I had a character that dual-wielded SCYTHES with a half-brother who dual-wielded GREATSWORDS (version 3 Monkey Grip allowed you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand; they were actually very good at the time). I made a character that was a Scout with some levels in Order of the Bow Initiate (used a Composite Longbow (+2 Str Mod)); he could accurately dish out a great deal of damage (I don't have the character sheet, and I seem to have misplaced my Complete Adventurer, but I assure you that the single attack he got each round was devestating).

There's one more thing you have to consider: if a player wants to use a sword-and-shield combo, and thinks that he'll be shield bashing every now-and-then, you're nerfing him. At 13th level, a Wizard can deal 26d6 damage with a single Disintigrate spell to a single target (Touch Attack; Fort. Save 16+Int Mod for partial damage (5d6)), or 13d6 damage in a 20-foot radius with a Delayed Blast Fireball spell (automatic hit; Reflex Save DC 17+ Int Mod for half damage). And you're worried about a single fighter dealing 2d6+Str Mod damage from a shield? Why not just ban magic altogether, if you're so concerned?

In short, your paranoia is unwarranted and illogical. However, it's your campaign that you're running, so I won't stop you from screwing it up.

Simanos

2009-01-14, 11:45 AM

{scrubbed}
{scrubbed} You already admitted I'm right:

Sure, its slightly stronger to use a Bash Shield + Shield than using a Long Sword and a Heavy Shield, but that's not really saying much.
Not saying much, except that what is obvious. A Longsword should be at least better than a shield in attack (never mind in TWF the extra free AC). My change to bashing fixes that and size abuse.
Stop wasting my time unless you have to offer something constructive.

...
At least you apologized for your errors in advance. :smalltongue:
You compare wrong things. Compare a Longsword to a Heavy Spiked Shield Bash. Then a Longsword plus Shortsword to Heavy Spiked Shield Bash plus a Light one. 2 Longswords to 2 Heavy Spiked Shield Bash.
With the same base damage the crit-threat of 19-20x2 compared to 20x2 gives less than 5% more damage (110/105=1.0476 so 4.76% more). Anyway my solution fixes all problems.

PS:
By the way, Simanos, even if you're not going to take the advice people have been offering about adopting a slightly less combative, aggressive tone, you might at least want to avoid triple-posting. Use the edit button to combine your posts, and the thread will be much easier on the eyes.
I usually try, but the forum was particularly unresponsive and I also had very different goals in my 3 posts. I didn't want to mix em (especially the 3rd).

Simanos

2009-01-14, 01:23 PM

Except in specialized builds, TWF and S&B are suboptimal. Those builds don't rely on individual weapon damage for more than ~10% of their damage per round. Almost no builds rely on base weapon damage for most of their damage. Sorry, but your increase in base damage just isn't powerful, much less over powered. It might be appropriate for the cost paid (what, about ~4k gold?)

Oh, and unless you go abusing size modifiers, guess what gives an equivalent damage increase for about 4k gold? MIC has Armbands of Might, they give +2 damage when you PA for at least 2. Now the Greatsword is doing 2d6+2 so long as I PA for at least 2, which you should almost always at least be doing. Are Armbands of Might also OP, since for the same price, they give a similar increase in damage? Heck, they should be even more OP, since they also give +4 on all str checks like trips and grapples. Also from MIC, Gauntlets of War, give +3 damage when you are wielding the favored weapon of a god with the war domain. Well, thats not hard to find for almost all martial weapons. Are Gauntlets of War OP?
All the damage bonuses add up. I'm comparing similar things. For 4k gold you get a +2 weapon or a +1 flaming. We can see that the usual trade-off is +1 to hit for +2.5 more average damage. For the same +1 cost (but half the gold cost cause magic armor bonuses are cheaper), Of Bashing gives +1d6 (more with size abuse) AND +1/+1 on a weapon that isn't made for attack but for defense and fluff/flavor aside also give +2 to AC for the price of 1 non-specific (all shields) feat. My fix is balanced.

Finally, there's a reason they are called splat-books. Stick to Core. Though what you describe seems balanced, but you worded it poorly so I can't really tell.

...

I figured it was your error. Otherwise that feat was not allowed in any proper game. It's still not allowed in my games which are "mostly" Core only and splat-book free. You're doing OK as far as errors go, I think, generally. Just your arguments are wrong.
Even if you get the Buckler enchanted, I could get a Buckler and that feat too. My char does anything another TWF char does. And the cost of your 2 weapons is double the cost of my shields. I get +2/+1+1d6 for 4000 gold and you get +1/+1+1d6 (flaming) or +2/+2 if you go basic bonuses for 8000 gold. I can afford more Armor than you...

I'm making it into a cheaper version of Flaming/Frost/Shocking enchantments, which, in turn, gives a reason NOT give the shield spikes. What? How? How the first thing? How the second thing? It's already that plus +1/+1 bonus:
"Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
And why is it a reason NOT to give the shield spikes? You lost me...

3) By making the enchantment bonus apply to either attack or defense, you open a massive loophole (by technicality). You see, by doing so, you're saying that the shield itself can be enchanted as a weapon, and, since a shield is technically armor, it's not a stretch to say that you're enchanting it at a lower cost. Therefore, you technically open up the ability for the shield to be given Flaming, Frost, and/or Shocking enchantments on top of it (and, again, since it's armor, it's cheaper to do, too). Throw in Spikes and enchant them, and you've got a one-handed powerhouse that's even more powerful than what you originally feared.

I'm not, it's in the rules like that already. I'm beginning to think you're using some sort of house-ruled way to apply spikes to shields. A shield doesn't have to be applied a spike. It can be made from the start as a spiked shield. It's one item, not two. Though I guess that is up to DM choice, along with the always offhanded route.

MammonAzrael

2009-01-14, 01:47 PM

Ok, I'm no super-optimizer, but I'll take a stab at this.

{table="head"]Stats|H.S. Shield|Spiked H.S.S.|+1 S.H.S.S. of Bashing|Greatsword|Longsword + H.S.S
Base Damage|1d4|1d6|2d6|2d6|1d8
STR Bonus|0.5|0.5|0.5|1.5|1
Other Bonus|--|--|+1|--|--
Crit|x2|x2|x2|19-20/x2|19-20/x2
AC Bonus|+2|+2|+3|+0|+2
GP Cost|20|30|4180|50|15
Earliest Lv|1|1|4|1|1[/table]

I simply don't see how it is overpowered. It certainly makes the shield stronger, but that's the point. But it costs a lot of bring it up to the level of a Greatsword, which you can have at lv 1, and it still lacks the 2:1 PA and increased crit range.

At level 4, when you can first afford the Bashing shield, you have 1220 gp left to spend on other equipment (+1 Scale Mail at best if you dump it into armor (1200)). If using a Greatsword, you can afford a +1 GS (2350) and +1 Fullplate (2650) and still have more money left over than with the Bashing Shield.

I admit that I find the spiked shield magic enhancement rules a bit muddled, but from what I understand Shield Spikes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#shieldSpikes), specifically:

Shield Spikes

When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

Bolding mine. It seems to me that adding the spikes turns the shield into a weapon, which would mean you'd have the use the weapon prices to increase it's Attack/Damage roll enhancement bonus or extra weapon abilities.

It is unclear to me if the shield and the spikes can be enchanted separately (for a total of a +10 bonus on each) or if they're considered the same, and share the +10 between them.

If I missed or misunderstood something, please correct me.

Signmaker

2009-01-14, 01:49 PM

All the damage bonuses add up. I'm comparing similar things. For 4k gold you get a +2 weapon or a +1 flaming.

Personal nitpick. I'm going to assume you mean 8k for a +2 weapon?

As far as I can see, "of bashing" is not overpowered. A shield, with bashing alone (no other shield enhancements) already costs 4k. Tack on the weapon enhancements on shield spikes (which continue at the normal 2000.x^2 weapon progression), and you've got quite a large monetary investment. While you say that the shield should not even compare to a long/bastard sword, note that they are two damage types. Usually, being bashed in (tee hee) by a heavy spiked object tends to hurt just as bad as being sliced.

As stated before by others with far more wisdom than I, base damage die end up mattering very little the farther up the CL ladder you climb. It is for this reason that TWFs and S&Bs usually fall behind a two-hander. Without investment in other sources (bardsong, dragonfire inspiration, etc), the Two-Hander is naturally better at damage dealing than its other melee styles, by virtue of 1.5x Str bonus and a Double Dose of Power Attacking, while still maintaining a respectable To-Hit bonus. Now, when a Dragonfire-dosed TWFer bangs out 20d6 fire damage due to multiple hits and a bard ally, that's an entirely different story. But again, comparing style choices in general, bashing just isn't quite up there.

Feel free to call me a noob or to claim that I'm not reading your posts, I just ask that you respond to my post with at least some form of polite respect, as I try for you.

Quietus

2009-01-14, 02:35 PM

Rather than wade into the mire of this shield debate, I'd just like to point out about Tower Shields : In order to take cover with them, you need to take the Total Defense action. Which is a standard action.

So yes, you can move with it - with one move action a round. Generally at 20 feet, since if you're using a tower shield, odds are you're in at least Medium armor, too.

shadowfox

2009-01-14, 02:51 PM

I figured it was your error. Otherwise that feat was not allowed in any proper game. It's still not allowed in my games which are "mostly" Core only and splat-book free. You're doing OK as far as errors go, I think, generally. Just your arguments are wrong.
Even if you get the Buckler enchanted, I could get a Buckler and that feat too. My char does anything another TWF char does. And the cost of your 2 weapons is double the cost of my shields. I get +2/+1+1d6 for 4000 gold and you get +1/+1+1d6 (flaming) or +2/+2 if you go basic bonuses for 8000 gold. I can afford more Armor than you...

I'm making it into a cheaper version of Flaming/Frost/Shocking enchantments, which, in turn, gives a reason NOT give the shield spikes. What? How? How the first thing? How the second thing? It's already that plus +1/+1 bonus:
"Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
And why is it a reason NOT to give the shield spikes? You lost me...

3) By making the enchantment bonus apply to either attack or defense, you open a massive loophole (by technicality). You see, by doing so, you're saying that the shield itself can be enchanted as a weapon, and, since a shield is technically armor, it's not a stretch to say that you're enchanting it at a lower cost. Therefore, you technically open up the ability for the shield to be given Flaming, Frost, and/or Shocking enchantments on top of it (and, again, since it's armor, it's cheaper to do, too). Throw in Spikes and enchant them, and you've got a one-handed powerhouse that's even more powerful than what you originally feared.

I'm not, it's in the rules like that already. I'm beginning to think you're using some sort of house-ruled way to apply spikes to shields. A shield doesn't have to be applied a spike. It can be made from the start as a spiked shield. It's one item, not two. Though I guess that is up to DM choice, along with the always offhanded route.

Hey, I'm just telling you what loopholes open due to your wording. And as for the "cheaper Frost thing," well... Come on. It IS a cheaper version of Frost, but without elemental damage. Hence why it makes the most difference in variables as the shield gets smaller. You don't NEED spikes anymore, but they're still useful.

As for shields, I'm sorry for playing a rogue so often. I never have to read up on shield rules, although I have made many attempts at finding them on whether shields (without spikes) could be enchanted as weapons. Could you kindly point out the page in the DMG for me? Because, you know, I'm also sorry for assuming that there was a reason why spikes had to be enchanted separately from the shield, and also why I see a lack of "Heavy Metal Shield of Frost."

Also, I put up with a lot of things from a lot of people... But you, sir, insult my intelligence when you assume that I don't know that a shield doesn't have to be spiked.

And what do you mean by "always offhanded route?" NOTHING, in any shape or form, stops you from wielding a shield in your primary hand. It's just that, when wielding a weapon along with a shield, it's assumed that you'll use your primary hand for attacking with the weapon, and the shield in your off-hand to block (and, occasionally, shield bash). However, I will say this: there is NO such thing as having 2 off-handed weapons (which you have spoken of earlier in this thread)... Actually, you're explaining the opposite of ambidexterity (instead of equally proficient with both hands, you lack proficiency with both hands). I think what you may be referring to is "Light Weapons," which a Heavy Shield, in no shape or form, is not.

I assure you, however, that nerfing the Bashing enchantment WON'T do anything good. In fact, I'd also like to point out that, while your originally proposed +1 Adamantine Spiked Heavy Adamantine Shield of Bashing did 2d6+1+Str Mod damage, using it on a similar shield (say, a normal, everyday medium-sized +1 Spiked Heavy Shield) would deal almost the same amount of damage with the Bashing enchantment. However, if you go with a small-sized Spiked Heavy Shield, you're turning it from 1d8+1+Str Mod (Core rules; average base + enchantment damage= 5.5), you're changing it into 1d4+1d6+0+ Str Mod (your house rule; base damage + enchantment damage= 6). Since you enjoy counting every point so much, then I'd assume that you're going to flip out when you read this, because, on average, it deals AN EXTRA 0.5 POINTS OF DAMAGE DUE TO YOUR HOUSE RULE! OMG, we're all gonna die! We're ll gonna die! AHHHHHH!

Please. At 8th level, I had a character (Scout 6/Order of the Bow Initiate 1) that --provided he could move 20 feet away from where he started his turn-- could dish out 1d8+2+4d6+1d8 on a single attack, get +3 to his AC while doing so, AND not provoke an Attack of Opportunity while doing so (damage range: 8-42; average roll: 25). Add in an extra +1 if the target was within 30 feet of him. Sure, he could only make on attack per round, but that's what I designed him for (ironically, it was the DM's idea for me to go into Order of the Bow Initiate (he was curious to see what would happen)).

Look, we're both tired of this. You don't get any points that anyone else, and you start arguing something that wasn't part of the argument to begin with. Even when you started this thread, there was nothing, at all, stated to stick with core, and you even made a reference to something outside of the core books. You haven't even kept you your own rule of "core only," yet you get mad that I still defend my original idea. But that's all pointless, isn't it?

I assure you, however, that nerfing the Bashing enchantment WON'T do anything good.

Man, I've NEVER run a core-only campaign (my first campaign 4 years ago was version 3, and my brother, who gave his books to me, had a couple of sourcebooks). Yes, some of the things are stupid, and some things should have been included in the core books, but they provide one thing that the core books can't: focus on one subject. And, maybe it's because we had to learn with what we had, but my group's "OP builds" are nothing compared to what you can probably find on this site (disclaimer: this comment is based on the statement of weathered forum-goers that a Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is, in fact, not OP). You're afraid of 2d6+Str mod? Then you'd be afraid of a Swashbuckler wielding an Elven Thinblade, dealing 1d8+Str mod+ Int Mod (my last Swashbuckler was an elf, Str 14 and Int 19, so that would deal 1d8+2+4, with a 18-20/x2 Crit Mod (range of damage: 7-14; average damage: 10.5).

Look, as one last chance of trying to help you (I'm a nice guy), I'll even provide you statistics using, quite simply, a Greataxe and Greatsword (base damage dice only).
Greataxe: 1d12 (average roll: 6.5)
% Chance of Rolling:
1= 8.333...%
2= 8.333...%
3= 8.333...%
4= 8.333...%
5= 8.333...%
6= 8.333...%
7= 8.333...%
8= 8.333...%
9= 8.333...%
10= 8.333...%
11= 8.333...%
12= 8.333...%
As you can see, there's an equal chance of landing on every number. This means that, when the math is applied to reality, it's "more random." However, you have as much as chance of rolling a 12 as you do rolling a 1.

Greatsword: 2d6 (average roll: 7)
% Chance of Rolling:
1= 0%
2= 2.777...%
3= 5.555...%
4= 8.333...%
5= 11.111...%
6= 13.888...%
7= 16.666...%*
8= 13.888...%
9= 11.111...%
10= 8.333...%
11= 5.555...%
12= 2.777...%
*= % chance of rolling any given number on 1d6.
As you can see, the Greatsword is much more likely to dish out its "average damage," but the chances of landing on the extremes is, quite simply, progressively harder and rarer.

Quite frankly, a Greataxe is of roughly the same "overpoweredness" as your feared Shield of Bashing, and benefits from a higher Crit Multiplier with the same threat range. Regardless that it has the same chance of rolling a 1 as it does rolling a 12, but, really, the damage from a Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing isn't overpowered.

Look, I don't play with overpowered houserules, or crazy ones. I just have a couple that stretch skill points out a little farther than core (if you take cross-class skills, that is), and I'm not knit-picky about the character's current carrying load (so long as it's within reason; they won't be moving 30 ft. a move action with a fridge strapped to their backs). I have faith in the system, and I take action when it's warranted. You, on the other hand, have so far changed an enchantment to either get weaker as the shield's size increases or stronger as the shield's size decreases than under the normal rules.

And if you stick to the core books, then stick to them. It's core for a reason. What's next, you're going to nerf the Bane enchantment, or the Unholy one too?

Wait and see what your PCs do, and THEN take action...

... Or, you know, take action on something that you don't even know will, for no reason whatsoever (other than unwarranted paranoia).

Simanos

2009-01-14, 03:16 PM

Fax Celestis

2009-01-14, 03:23 PM

Are you sure? Where does it say that?

Right here.

Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

Simanos

2009-01-14, 03:30 PM

I admit that I find the spiked shield magic enhancement rules a bit muddled...
That's about right. The rest of what you say has already been covered. In your example you forgot to make the Longsword +2 (8000 gp) and also to add the +1/+1 "of Bashing" gives:
"The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls." SRD
The Greatsword thing has also been answered.

Personal nitpick. I'm going to assume you mean 8k for a +2 weapon?
Yes, I can go and change that, but it would only reinforce my point.
I've already refuted the cost arguments and the base damage arguments and the two-hander arguments. Apples and oranges. Keep on reading...
I only insulted those who insult intelligence.

Right here.
WHERE?
It says you must give up your attacks. It doesn't say it is the Total Defense or it uses a standard action. It also doesn't say you get any of the other benefits of Total Defense.
The Total Defense does explicitly say it IS a standard action.
Personally, I would probably* house-rule it to be a standard action BUT it doesn't say it anywhere.

*=Depending on the directional or not nature of the Tower Shield which you haven't provided info on yet.

Keld Denar

2009-01-14, 03:38 PM

All the damage bonuses add up. I'm comparing similar things. For 4k gold you get a +2 weapon or a +1 flaming. We can see that the usual trade-off is +1 to hit for +2.5 more average damage. For the same +1 cost (but half the gold cost cause magic armor bonuses are cheaper), Of Bashing gives +1d6 (more with size abuse) AND +1/+1 on a weapon that isn't made for attack but for defense and fluff/flavor aside also give +2 to AC for the price of 1 non-specific (all shields) feat. My fix is balanced.
And thank you for making my point. Bashing is balanced. You pay for a bonus, you get a bonus. If you paid for a bonus and got NO bonus, it would be underpowered. Thus, since its not overpowered, and not underpowered, it must just be "powered" or balanced. That's what I've been argueing all along. Its not OP. OP is Kaorti Resin weapons, which automatically increases your crit multiplier to x4, regardless of what it was. OP is Polymorph, to turn you into a War Troll capable of eating faces with your bare hands for a few minutes per day. OP being able to make a couple hundred full attacks in a single round using Divine Impetus and Shadow Blink combined with Cinti Marauder. Paying 4000g to get +3 damage is NOT OVER POWERED.

Finally, there's a reason they are called splat-books. Stick to Core. Though what you describe seems balanced, but you worded it poorly so I can't really tell.

Whether you like it or not, its out there. People, real life people, play with it. And enjoy it. {Scrubbed} doesn't mean you should judge people based on their preferences. I enjoy playing with WotC suppliments, because it gives me more options than the ever present "I Power Attack with my 2hander...again".

And please stop with the personal attacks. This is the last time I'm gonna ask. You've attacked me, Fax, and a few others on the board. Granted, this is the internet, but I like to think that the OotS forums are a safehaven from that kind of thing. Please stop.

Roland St. Jude

2009-01-14, 03:49 PM

...like to think that the OotS forums are a safehaven from that kind of thing...

Sheriff of Moddingham: It is. All parties are advised that this board has civility standards much higher than presently on display. Please treat others with respect and refrain from any personal attacks.

shadowfox

2009-01-14, 03:51 PM

Personally, I would probably* house-rule it to be a standard action BUT it doesn't say it anywhere.

*=Depending on the directional or not nature of the Tower Shield which you haven't provided info on yet.

Rules for version 3.5 shield direction are in a suppliment book, the Unearthed Arcana, so it's not exactly Core (edit: "exactly" being the key word here; read Fax's quoted errata below). It (facing rules covered in Unearthed Arcana) also requires (well, pretty much requires) the use of miniatures, models, or something that you can use to differenciate which direction an individual is facing (personally, I use a normal pencil and graphing paper, so such a variant system would be all but impossible for me). In Core 3.5, it effectively assumes that you're always facing the shield in the right direction at any given moment.

All edits related to Fax's post below this one. In fact, just ignore this post. Just go down one for your answer.

Fax Celestis

2009-01-14, 04:00 PM

WHERE?
It says you must give up your attacks. It doesn't say it is the Total Defense or it uses a standard action. It also doesn't say you get any of the other benefits of Total Defense.
The Total Defense does explicitly say it IS a standard action.
Personally, I would probably* house-rule it to be a standard action BUT it doesn't say it anywhere.

*=Depending on the directional or not nature of the Tower Shield which you haven't provided info on yet.

Alright, let me quote the FAQ then.

Q: Total cover prevents any attack against you. You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. What does “give up all your attacks” mean? Can you move while getting total cover from the shield? Can you cast a spell? Also, do you get total cover from all directions or from just one side of your square? Will the total cover from a tower shield negate spell effects? Will it negate attacks of opportunity from movement or from other actions such as spellcasting? Will it prevent charge attacks against you? What about bull rush attacks? Can it prevent grapple attacks or snatch attacks? Will it stop fear effects, gaze attacks, or clouds of poison gas? Will it defeat traps?

To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a standard action. The tower shield rules don’t say that, but that’s what they mean. Since you can take only one standard action each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round action during the same round you claim total cover from the shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after you claim cover from the shield.

Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have total cover against any attack’s line of effect that passes through that side of your space. If an attack’s line of effect goes through the corner of the side of your space that the shield blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) instead of total cover. If an attack’s line of effect passes through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you get no cover from the shield at all. To determine where the line of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from the effect’s point of origin and your center. Once you claim cover from the shield, the shield keeps blocking the side of your space that you chose until the beginning of your next turn, when you can again decide whether you’ll use the shield for cover. Once you choose the side of your space that the shield blocks, you cannot change it until your next turn.

You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of opportunity (see page 151 in the PH), the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath. Total cover or cover from a tower shield has the following effects in different situations:

• Magical Attacks: A tower shield’s effects on magical attacks depend on the kind of magical attack. Any attack aimed at your equipment is aimed at you.
If a magical attack has you as a specific target (that is it does not merely affect the area that contains you but is aimed right at you), the shield has no effect. All rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in its header and any spell that has an Effect entry and affects creatures (provided, of D&D FAQ v.3.5 71 Update Version: 6/30/08 course, that the attacker can and does choose the shield user as a target). Magical attacks that fill areas (bursts, cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the PH. Such attacks are completely blocked if line of effect between you and the attack’s point of origin passes through the side of your space the shield blocks. You get cover (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) if the magical attack’s line of effect passes through the corner of the blocked side. Spread effects reach around the shield if they normally would extend into your space, but you still get a Reflex save bonus for cover when they do. A gaze attack is blocked if the shield would give you total cover against attacks from the creature with the gaze attack. If the shield gives you cover only, you’re still subject to the gaze attack (although you could avert or close your eyes to avoid the attack).

• Attacks of Opportunity: As noted earlier, cover or total cover prevents attacks of opportunity. So you could, for example, hunker down behind a tower shield and pick up a weapon or rummage around in a backpack and avoid attacks of opportunity against you. If you’re moving while using the shield for cover, things get a little more complicated. You must determine whether the shield gives you cover (or total cover) at the point during your movement when you’d normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Remember that attacks of opportunity are usually resolved before the actions that provoke them. In many cases, the shield won’t be positioned correctly to protect you during your whole move.

• Charging and Bull Rushing: Opponents can charge you while you claim cover from the shield. An opponent moves as normal when charging you, moving to the closest square from which a melee attack normally would be possible. If the shield gives you total cover from the attack, the attack automatically fails. Foes can bull rush you normally, moving right into your space in spite of the shield. You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover.

• Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks such attacks (the foe just can’t get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such attacks just like any other grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can’t damage you unless he pins you first. You can escape the foe’s hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since it’s strapped to your arm), so long as the foe has not pinned you.

• Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective against a trap as it is against any other attack.

Simanos

2009-01-14, 04:08 PM

Hey, I'm just telling you what loopholes open due to your wording. And as for the "cheaper Frost thing," well... Come on. It IS a cheaper version of Frost, but without elemental damage. Hence why it makes the most difference in variables as the shield gets smaller. You don't NEED spikes anymore, but they're still useful.
Right now it is a cheaper version of Frost PLUS +1/+1 for free. I'm NERFING it dude. {Scrubbed}

The rules allow for plain shields to be offensively enchanted NOT just spiked shields (or the shield spikes specifically by some people's interpretation). So you're wrong again.
"A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
See? No mention of spikes.

About the offhanded always thing, it was a suggestion by someone else that I found reasonable, though its alternative is also reasonable. He was on the side trying to prove me wrong. So I'm fine with you saying they can be primary too. BTW there's no ambidexterity feat in 3.5 core anymore (sucked into TWF) and there's creatures with 2 claws attacks, both secondary (offhand, 1/2 STR) either cause of a bite as primary or peacefulness (like normal horses)

Again the only NERF I did to "of Bashing" was to remove the +1/+1 and make it a basic +1d6 instead of size modifiers that can be abused. READ!
I have ABSOLUTELY NO frackin idea why you mention the Greataxe and the Greatsword AND go so in depth (other than to insult my intelligence perhaps) with their basics WHEN they are two-handed weapons. The only comparison that fits is with a Longsword or similar (at best a bastard).
I also don't know the stats of the Elven Thinblade you mention, but its powers are probably paid in + costs. Once you make a shield a weapon you can give it any weapon enchantment by the rules. My shield of Bashing is exactly like Shortspear+1 Flaming (or Merciful), but cheaper and with free AC bonuses if you go for TWF.
Bane and (Un)holy are balanced by target limitations. Burst is a bit underwhelming though as a property, statistically.
Please no more splat.

Signmaker

2009-01-14, 04:22 PM

Right now it is a cheaper version of Frost PLUS +1/+1 for free. I'm NERFING it dude. {Scrubbed}

The rules allow for plain shields to be offensively enchanted NOT just spiked shields (or the shield spikes specifically by some people's interpretation). So you're wrong again.
"A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
See? No mention of spikes.

First off, Frost is a really, really bad baseline for what is 'balanced'. There really isn't a need to nerf a par-subpar(depending on personal beliefs) ability, cause you're just pouring salt on the wounds.

Secondly, "A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon" does imply that shields don't need spikes. But here's the gimmick- they help. The only tradeoff is that you go from B-type to P-type damage. Unfortunately, you'd still have to apply costs separately, one set for melee enhancements and the other for AC enhancements. And unless you're using the Improved Shield Bash feat you're only getting the advantage of one at a time. Assuming, of course, that you're only using one shield. If you aren't, then you might as well get Improved Shield Bash and TWF a Heavy and a Light, seeing as you're shield-happy anyway.

shadowfox

2009-01-14, 05:04 PM

Well, thank you very much for pointing it out in the DMG for me. I will withdraw my "found loophole" as soon as possible...

Might I ask, however, that you cite the source of your information in the future, so as to prevent continued arguments such as this. I have cited where my information comes from, even as far as to cite the specific page and column.

I will, however, maintain that you are not reading my posts carefully. In no place, whatsoever, did I make a mention of the "Ambidextrous" feat. If you recall, I have, indeed, played version 3; it was the version I started off on. No where else, in any other post, have I made a reference to Ambidexterity (the feat), and only in my last post did I refer to ambidexterity (the natural ability of being able to use both hands at roughly the same proficiency, as opposed to being left- or right-handed). All of that was in relation to you're support of "wielding a shield, no matter the hand, should/could/might/whatever be off-handed." It defeats the purpose of having a dominant hand. I'm just arguing in the case of Core, and how you're discriminating the use of shields as a weapon.

As for the Elven Thinblade, it was not magical in any sense whatsoever. The "costs" were 3 levels in Swashbuckler (Complete Warrior) (in order to gain the "Insightful Strike" class ability, which allows you to add your Int Mod to weapon damage with a weapon you have the Weapon Finesse feat for, on top of Str Mod), Weapon Finesse (Elven Thinblade), Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Thinblade), and 100 GP. The Elven Thinblade can be found in both Complete Warrior and Races of the Wild books.

As a personal request, if this continues, I would like you to stop constantly changing your argument. Besides additional weapons you have brought up, I do my best to compare to your original hypothetical situation: a +1 Adamantine Spiked Heavy Adamantine Shield of Bashing. If you look back, most of my points, and the points of others, are valid; it's not cost-effective, it's not overpowered, and you're over-reacting.

I would also like to ask that you stop assuming that I don't read. I did, in fact, read that you got rid of the +1 to attack/damage and +2 sizes in damage from your proposed alterations to the "Bashing" enchantment. Mind you, I did state how you simply make the Bashing enchantment better, if slightly, as the shields get smaller in size.

Any real reference to anything non-Core was, simply put, a comparision. You had never stated to use Core-only in the first post, and, again, you even referenced non-Core material (unless Powerful Build is in the Monster Manual, as well as eluding me in every search I make), and have made one or two other references to non-Core to attempt prove your own point ("attempt" because, quite frankly, I haven't seen hard math back up your own point, and opinion isn't going to make me "see the light," so to speak).

As for the Greatsword & Greataxe thing, my answer is simple: they're they only two Core weapons that have the base damage of 2d6 & 1d12, respectively. If you also notice, my math was related to the percent chance to roll a specific number, in order to further try to ease you out of nerfing an enchantment that you don't even know if someone is going to make. The in-depth explanations were not an insult to your intelligence; it's just that, since you have yet to provide your own solid statistics in regards to damage, hit percentage, etc., I assumed that you were just not good at math. (If you are bad at math, let me say this: neither am I; I just enjoy figuring out the statistics.) However, to be more precise with my reason of including them, it was that, when it boils down to it, you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Look, all I've been saying from the beginning is that you're over-reacting. House rule it so that it only applies to the base shield damage, and not to the increase of damage when the shield is spiked (I believe this point was brought up earlier by someone else). There. The Heavy Shield of Bashing now deals 1d8 damage. If it's spiked, you can even house rule it so that it deals piercing damage instead of bludgeoning damage. There, everyone's happy. If someone asks, you can say that, by the way you read it, the Bashing enchantment increases the force of the bash itself, which implies that it's related to the damage the shield, and only the shield, does. The spiked are still useful for changing the damage type and putting additional enchantments on it. It's win-win.

Now, I have my math, I have my logic. Please, counter my math and logic with your math and logic.

lilhowie624

2009-01-14, 05:04 PM

this is it this is only an argument to make him justify what he thinks is op lets get real true op is

lvl 1 human fighter lance spirited charger light horse
lvl 1 orc mage sleep spell scyth coupe de grace
lvl 1 orc barb with great sword raged

those are op lvl 1s that can deal the dmg of a lvl 4 and the amount you can deal with your shield of bashing and they do it much easier.

Simanos

2009-01-14, 05:10 PM

Alright, let me quote the FAQ then.
THANK YOU. That was almost too much. A lot was missing in the book apparently. Only a single move action is a good balancer. No run or withdraw, etc.
Also I want to point out that Quietus said "in order to take cover with them, you need to take the Total Defense action", which is not what the FAQ says. The FAQ says it is a standard action. You don't gain the benefits of Total Defense at all.

Can you also find in the FAQ or comment yourself on whether Shield Bashes are always off-hand attacks (even with primary hand). And on the costs of magic on shields and on spikes.
Do you disagree with the removing of the +1/+1 free bonuses of Bashing to put it more in line with Flaming, Merciful, etc?
Do you disagree with the size buff change to a plain +1d6?
Do you disagree that a Flaming Shortspear+1 offers the same damage as my shield for the same or more cost and no free AC?

...
Apples and oranges...

First off, Frost is a really, really bad baseline for what is 'balanced'. There really isn't a need to nerf a par-subpar(depending on personal beliefs) ability, cause you're just pouring salt on the wounds.

Secondly, "A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon" does imply that shields don't need spikes. But here's the gimmick- they help. The only tradeoff is that you go from B-type to P-type damage. Unfortunately, you'd still have to apply costs separately, one set for melee enhancements and the other for AC enhancements. And unless you're using the Improved Shield Bash feat you're only getting the advantage of one at a time. Assuming, of course, that you're only using one shield. If you aren't, then you might as well get Improved Shield Bash and TWF a Heavy and a Light, seeing as you're shield-happy anyway.
Are you saying that Frost (etc) is too good or too bad?
Do not forget bashing gives +1/+1 as well as +1d6 extra if you start with 1d6 base (easy). Sizing up makes things worse.

I think your theory for magic shields is the only workable one. You pay an armorer 4000 gp to give your shield +2 AC. Then you can pay a weaponsmith 8000 to give that same basic shield +2 on attack rolls (and not to damage apparently, no?). You don't add it as +4 and try to guess which list to choose, weapon or armor, for magic costs. Spikes do not matter, it's one item. Which list the properties you add are is what matters.
The other way to go is to consider it an armor always and just take "+"s from the weapon properties (like frost) and add them to the shield base and calculate cost in the armor list (half priced).
Win-Win scenarios.
In the first case you can make a Flaming+Shock shield of Bashing +1. It gives 1d6 base damage, 3 AC, +1/+1 (from bashing) and +1d6 piercing, fire and electricity so 3d6 extra for a mere 8000+4000=12000. A +1 Shortspear of Frost Flame and Shock (lol) would have same base and bonuses for 32000. OK I take it back, this isn't balanced.
In the second case the cost of the shield would be 16000, more than 12000 but still only half of the Shortspear costs. It even has the same crit mod.
No wonder no one becomes an iconic spear and shield warrior...

shadowfox

2009-01-14, 05:17 PM

Can you also find in the FAQ or comment yourself on whether Shield Bashes are always off-hand attacks (even with primary hand). And on the costs of magic on shields and on spikes.

Off-hand attacks refers to just that: attacking with your off-hand (non-dominant). That's all it refers to in a normal, humanoid creature (the kind, at least, that consists of the usual player races, at least).

Edit: Shields= armor (Edit: generalizing here for simplicity's sake, not stating it as a fact), Spikes= weapons

Here's the armor and shield equations (though I warn you: it deals with enchantment modifiers, not set increase costs (such as Cold Resistance)):
Armor Enchantment Cost= (combined enchantment modifiers)^2 x 1,000 GP
Weapon Enchantment Cost= (combined enchantment modiviers)^2 x 2,000 GP

Fairly simple to pick up and apply. It's really handy, because then you don't have to flip through the pages to find out the cost. Hope this helps you in the future.

Edit: I'm not sure if the equations are listed in the DMG, but if you find the tables, the math's easy enough to do. As a reminder, though, the equations are for enchantment costs only; the enchanted item(s) still need to be masterwork (adding either 150 GP or 300 GP) (note: with special materials, the masterwork cost is usually included in the price of the material), as well as the base price of the weapon itself.

Signmaker

2009-01-14, 05:20 PM

THANK YOU. That was almost too much. A lot was missing in the book apparently.

Can you also find in the FAQ or comment yourself on whether Shield Bashes are always off-hand attacks (even with primary hand). And on the costs of magic on shields and on spikes.
Do you disagree with the removing of the +1/+1 free bonuses of Bashing to put it more in line with Flaming, Merciful, etc?
Do you disagree with the size buff change to a plain +1d6?
Do you disagree that a Flaming Shortspear+1 offers the same damage as my shield for the same or more cost and no free AC?

Shield bashes are always off-hand? shwaaaaah?

And again, Flaming and Merciful are not the best enhancements to set the bar with. Additionally, the +1/+1 "free" bonus you state is immediately overwritten once you start tacking on melee enhancements, as you need to +1 a weapon before you can add flaming, merciful, etc. To make an effective basher, I'd assume you'd also want melee enhancements, thus making the +1/+1 of bashing just a temporary freebie.

The +1d6 just makes it a cheaper version of flaming. Additionally, some of the best defensive enhancements are found on armor/shield, like fortification. Depriving yourself of such bonuses, you might as well have the reward be decent.

And so what if the spear does the same damage? Big metal object + momentum= nifty collision.

Fax Celestis

2009-01-14, 05:36 PM

Can you also find in the FAQ or comment yourself on whether Shield Bashes are always off-hand attacks (even with primary hand).
Yes.

Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?
While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand
becomes a secondary weapon.

And on the costs of magic on shields and on spikes.Not covered, but the text seems pretty clear:

Shields

Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a bash. The bashing special ability, however, does grant a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC.

As with armor, special abilities built into the shield add to the market value in the form of additions to the bonus of the shield, although they do not improve AC. A shield cannot have an effective bonus (enhancement plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A shield with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. In short, you are allowed to enchant a shield as you would a weapon, but in order to improve it (say, by giving it +1 attack and damage), you would have to enchant it as you would a weapon, paying the particular costs.

Do you disagree with the removing of the +1/+1 free bonuses of Bashing to put it more in line with Flaming, Merciful, etc?I do. The Bashing enhancement's +1 attack and damage is merely an emulation of putting a +1 enhancement bonus on the item--something you would have to do on a weapon in order to enchant it. Also remember that elemental damage deals an extra 50% damage against foes that are weak against that element, whereas increased weapon size damage does not ever deal extra damage.

Do you disagree with the size buff change to a plain +1d6?Yes. Base weapon damage is rarely significant enough to warrant alarm.

Do you disagree that a Flaming Shortspear+1 offers the same damage as my shield for the same or more cost and no free AC?I do, since in order to maintain your AC while using your shield as a weapon, you need to obtain the Improved Shield Bash feat. At that point, the feat cost leaves you in a situation where you might as well buy Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Options for EWP in core that would be competitive with the shield include bastard sword (one-handed), spiked chain, dwarven urgrosh, or hand or repeating crossbow. These particular options may not put out as much damage, but they do have advantages: the bastard sword has a higher threat range; spiked chain is a reach finesse weapon; urgrosh can either be a spear or an axe and has a better critical multiplier; and the crossbows have range.

Simanos

2009-01-14, 06:08 PM

Not covered, but the text seems pretty clear:
In short, you are allowed to enchant a shield as you would a weapon, but in order to improve it (say, by giving it +1 attack and damage), you would have to enchant it as you would a weapon, paying the particular costs.

I do. The Bashing enhancement's +1 attack and damage is merely an emulation of putting a +1 enhancement bonus on the item--something you would have to do on a weapon in order to enchant it. Also remember that elemental damage deals an extra 50% damage against foes that are weak against that element, whereas increased weapon size damage does not ever deal extra damage.

Yes. Base weapon damage is rarely significant enough to warrant alarm.
I do, since in order to maintain your AC while using your shield as a weapon, you need to obtain the Improved Shield Bash feat. At that point, the feat cost leaves you in a situation where you might as well buy Exotic Weapon Proficiency. Options for EWP in core that would be competitive with the shield include bastard sword (one-handed), spiked chain, dwarven urgrosh, or hand or repeating crossbow. These particular options may not put out as much damage, but they do have advantages: the bastard sword has a higher threat range; spiked chain is a reach finesse weapon; urgrosh can either be a spear or an axe and has a better critical multiplier; and the crossbows have range.
Thanks for clearing up the off-hand thing. That answers one of my detractors then. I'm 1-up.

The costs thing still is not clear. Can you make it specific? Reread my post above with the example edited in.

There are weapons considered magic without bonuses. Also whether "of Bashing" is fine depends on how much it costs. So elaborate on costs.
The elemental damage can be resisted as well as increased. It depends, I say it is of same worth.

Finally vs a Shortspear I don't even need a feat to maintain my AC. I use a defensive shield offhand too like the spearman. If he uses an offhand weapon then, yes, I use 2 attack shields and the feat to get 3 free AC compared to the spearman. If he uses animated shield so do I. Exotic weapon doesn't factor into it. I'm comparing shield bashing to conventional weapons. You could say weapon focus or something, but meh, it all depends.

The last thing I want to comment is the worth of + to hit. A +1/+1 compared to +1d6 (3.5) damage only means that +1 to hit is judged (by the rules) of same cost as average damage +2.5 extra. This is +0.5 more than what Power Attack gives even for two-handers so I'm gonna say that Flaming and the rest aren't as sucky as you guys presented them. In this very thread people talked about 2 points in PA nearly always.
However, I'm willing to admit that for TWF (as opposed to S&B) style, since there's a lot of damage from other sources (but not always) maybe the "+"s to hit are even more needed so that weakness of shields will shine. I mean that they get + to hit only and not to damage:
"A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC."
That does mean no + to damage right?
(also the first +1 doesn't stack with the free +1 of the bashing property, enhancements don't stack)

PS: How do you feel about using a shield two-handed? I'm leaning towards no, unless specially constructed for that. But that is still cheese...

Fax Celestis

2009-01-14, 06:14 PM

Finally vs a Shortspear I don't even need a feat to maintain my AC. I use a defensive shield offhand too like the spearman. If he uses an offhand weapon then, yes, I use 2 attack shields and the feat to get 3 free AC compared to the spearman. If he uses animated shield so do I. Exotic weapon doesn't factor into it. I'm comparing shield bashing to conventional weapons. You could say weapon focus or something, but meh, it all depends. Well, my point is that you are spending a feat to use your weapon if you take ISB, then you might as well compare to other weapons that you'll need to spend a feat for.

PS: How do you feel about using a shield two-handed? I'm leaning towards no, unless specially constructed for that. But that is still cheese...Nah, I'd rule it like a rapier: despite being a one-handed weapon, you can't two-hand it. (Yes, yes, I know you can technically two-hand a rapier but get no benefit for it, but its a negligible distinction.)

Keld Denar

2009-01-14, 06:51 PM

OK, so you can enchant a shield as a weapon, which is completely seperate from enchanting it as a shield.

Your example with a +1 Bashing Flaming Frost shield was close. The one thing you missed is that when enchanting a weapon, you need at least a +1 enhancement bonus to start stacking other things on it. So, for the price you specified, you'd get a +1 Bashing +1 Flaming shield, and assuming a large shield, you'd deal:

2d6 (base with bashing) +1 enchancement from weapon, +1d6 flaming

Or 3d6+1, assuming no resistances.

I'm like, 95% sure that bashing gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, which would then be replaced by the +1 enhancement bonus you pay the first 2000g for when you enchant the shield as a weapon. Multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack (same reason you can't cast Magic Weapon on a +1 sword to get +2 hit/dmg, and that the Masterwork +1 enhancement bonus to hit doesn't stack with a +1 weapon).

I'm at work and can't check, but there is a slight, very slight, chance that the +1 bonus to hit and damage that bashing gives is untyped, in which case, the shield would deal 3d6+2, but I don't think this is the case. Anyone able to cite bashing quick?

And finally, exactly like Fax stated. There is an opportunity cost for the extra damage. You either lose the AC bonus when you attack with it, or you spend a feat. That feat could be spent on something else which would similarly increase damage, or increase defenses, or just help you weave baskets underwater better.

As long as the benefit is in line with the opportunity cost, then it is considered balanced. Spending a feat and a bunch of cash to get a shield that does above average damage AND retains its AC bonus is balanced vs taking Power Attack and investing the shield money on an item like Gauntlets of Str, which give +1 hit and +1.5 damage, or the equivalent +3.5 damage if you PA with that +1 (so long as you aren't over your BAB already).

And finally, yes, the elemental damage boosters are typically considered underpowered. First of all, as elemental damage, its heavily nerfed by even resistance 5. Most outsiders have at least resistance 5, or more likely 10, and that includes a lot of Fiendish templated creatures of Half Fiendish creatures. Also, a lot of elementals are immune to one, while vulnerable to another element, same with dragons and anything else with an [Elemental] subtype. Better enhancements are things that scale better, like Wounding, or add "weapon" type damage, like Vicious or Merciful, because chances are if you hit something with DR, you'll at least do more damage than its DR and any "weapon" type damage will then always apply above and beyond the DR. Wounding is really good, since its damage scales. Every 2 hits makes the creature lose 1 hp/HD, which can be a lot. Say you have Holy compared to Wounding, a +2 vs a +2 equiv. Holy is always going to at an average of 7 damage per hit. Thus, if you hit twice, you'll add about 14 damage. If you hit a 14 HD twice with a wounding weapon, it'll lose 14 HD from wounding, thus they are equal at this point. Now, if you hit a 20 HD creature twice, you'll have done 20 extra damage, more than holy, on average, but if you attack a 10 HD creature, then you'll have done only 10 damage, less than Holy, on average.

So, weapon enhancements vary in usefulness. From core, I've always considered Vicious, Merciful, Wounding, and Holy to be the strongest. Merciful and Vicious both do "weapon" type damage (Merciful's conversion to non-lethal can be turned off), Holy generally applies to about 80% of what PCs fight, everything that isn't a non-templated animal, ooze, base elemental, or most plants. Wounding is great because if you have lots of attacks, it inflicts a lot of con damage, only a few things are immune to it, it scales pretty well late game, and at any point, it lowers foes fort saves which butters them up for various attacks like Staggering Strike, Three Mountains, or your friendly casters Finger of Death. Thats good!

Jasdoif

2009-01-14, 06:55 PM

I'm like, 95% sure that bashing gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, which would then be replaced by the +1 enhancement bonus you pay the first 2000g for when you enchant the shield as a weapon. Multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack (same reason you can't cast Magic Weapon on a +1 sword to get +2 hit/dmg, and that the Masterwork +1 enhancement bonus to hit doesn't stack with a +1 weapon).

I'm at work and can't check, but there is a slight, very slight, chance that the +1 bonus to hit and damage that bashing gives is untyped, in which case, the shield would deal 3d6+2, but I don't think this is the case. Anyone able to cite bashing quick?

Bashing

A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. (Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.)Emphasis mine. That would be a +1 enhancement bonus, naturally.

Fax Celestis

2009-01-14, 06:57 PM

Your example with a +1 Bashing Flaming Frost shield was close. The one thing you missed is that when enchanting a weapon, you need at least a +1 enhancement bonus to start stacking other things on it. So, for the price you specified, you'd get a +1 Bashing +1 Flaming shield, and assuming a large shield, you'd deal:

2d6 (base with bashing) +1 enchancement from weapon, +1d6 flaming

Or 3d6+1, assuming no resistances....for which you'd pay the cost of a +2 shield plus a +2 weapon (or 12,000 gp).

I'm like, 95% sure that bashing gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, which would then be replaced by the +1 enhancement bonus you pay the first 2000g for when you enchant the shield as a weapon. Multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack (same reason you can't cast Magic Weapon on a +1 sword to get +2 hit/dmg, and that the Masterwork +1 enhancement bonus to hit doesn't stack with a +1 weapon).
Yup.

Bashing

A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. (Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.)

Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull’s strength; Price +1 bonus.

Keld Denar

2009-01-14, 07:48 PM

Ok, I was right about the enhancement thing. So, with a shield-weapon, you are effectively paying 3000g for that +1 hit/dmg, since you have to go through the +1 on the armor side to get to bashing, and the +1 on the weapon side to get to weapon buffs, but only getting the +1 to hit and damage once.

Simanos

2009-01-15, 04:49 AM

Well, my point is that you are spending a feat to use your weapon if you take ISB, then you might as well compare to other weapons that you'll need to spend a feat for.

Nah, I'd rule it like a rapier: despite being a one-handed weapon, you can't two-hand it. (Yes, yes, I know you can technically two-hand a rapier but get no benefit for it, but its a negligible distinction.)
But I'm not spending a feat if I use the attack shield as a primary and a defense shield in the offhand just like a spearman uses a Shortspear in his primary and a defense shield in his offhand
Even if I did spend a feat I would still be comparing the attack shield to a normal weapon + free feat at best. Exotic weapons don't need to enter into it. Even if a katana is better than the attack shield, that doesn't still make it right that the Shortspear (longsword, etc) is worse.

About the two-handed thing, I'm against it like you, though someone wanted to grab a shield by its sides and use it like a big plate and he cited the precedence of the two-handed Sword-shields from D&D 1st edition. I don't know if you remember them from decades ago, they were pretty lame too.

...
That's a good point that you have to take the +1 weapon enhancement step again for weapons to start the other properties rolling. However isn't it covered by the fact that "of Bashing" is already "considered a +1 weapon"?
Also what's your stance on weapon enhancements to shields. Do they add + to damage or only to hit? The rules seem to indicate only to hit (not damage).
Even so that only makes the weapon chant costs similar instead of less. Consider a shield with +5 weapon costs or more. That's at least 50,000 gp and the extra 4,000 gp for the "of Bashing" is nearly trivial. And you get the same stuff (unless you go the no + to damage way) plus maybe free AC.
Or go the low end way, a Shield+1 of Bashing costs 4,000, a Flaming Spear +1 costs 8,000 for same stuff.
But yes, the middle ground is tough.

The AC bonus thing I have answered already many times. Read up.
How can you say the elemental damage boosters are typically considered underpowered. Fax said:
"Also remember that elemental damage deals an extra 50% damage against foes that are weak against that element, whereas increased weapon size damage does not ever deal extra damage."
You guys are driving me crazy. You can't have it both ways, when/as it suits you. I've also proven that trading +1/+1 for +1d6 is better than the (good) Power Attack ratio and people praise that. Wouldn't you trade +1 to hit for +2.5 to damage? It works for one-handed too no less.
Bane, (Un)Holy and the rest are balanced by handicaps (restricted targets, etc). Or are you guys saying that, as well with TWF and S&B, elemental damage boosters should NEVER be taken and are UP. AND you can take them (Bane, etc) on the attack shield anyway, so moot point.

Keld Denar

2009-01-15, 05:44 AM

A short spear is a simple weapon...it only requires simple weapon proficiency. As a simple 1 handed weapon, 1d6 base damage is pretty standard.

A long sword is a martial weapon...it requires martial weapon proficiency, which is a bit more than a short spear. It also does 1d8 base damage, to represent the increased cost of being able to use it.

A shield is...a shield. It requires shield proficiency to use as a shield, or to bash. Not every class gets shield proficiency. Ones that do enjoy being able to use shields. Again, you get something a little better, because you have an extra ability. It also does 1d8, on par with a long sword.

Your shield has a ~4000g base cost increase over a regular shield. That requires cash, which comes with levels and experience and adventuring. That means you are paying for the shield with risk (you could have died) and opportunity cost (you could have bought something else). Your shield does 2d6 on a bash. This is on par with the extra cost to buy it.

A +1 long sword costs ~2000g, which gives it an extra bonus to hit, and some extra damage. At low levels, a character who buys a +1 long sword probably can't afford your bashing shield. Again, we see opportunity cost, and opportunity reward.

So, we have:
Simple 1d6 (average 3.5)
Martial 1d8 (average 4.5)
Shield 1d8 (average 4.5)
+1 long sword 1d8+1 (average 5.5)
+1 bash shield 2d6+1 (average 8)

You see, as the requirements increase, so does damage. Not every character can enjoy the luxury of having martial weapon proficieny, so they are stuck about 1 damage behind those who have it. Also, not everyone has shield proficiency, so they can't use one as a weapon to ALSO gain the 1 extra point of average damage. Also, not everyone has 4000g to spend on a bashing shield. They spend that 4000g for the ability to do a bit more damage, the same as the guy could spend 2000g for a +1 weapon. His 2000g buys him 1 damage over the unupgraded weapon, and your 4000g buys 2.5 damage on top of that.

You see how this works? Its simple economics. You pay more, you get cooler toys. That cost is rooted in gold value, feat expenditures, body slots, bonus types, and upgradability. You paid twice what sword guy spent, but got 3.5 times the damage increase he got, but later, when he has a shiney new +2 sword, he'll have only paid 6000g for the upgrade, while you'll have to pay 8000g. That means you'll have paid 12000g for the +1 bashing shield with a +2 enhancement, and he'll have paid 8000g for just a longsword +2. Your damage will be 2d6+2 (average 9) and his damage will be 1d8+2 (average 6.5). Guess what, you are still 2.5 damage ahead of him, but you've also paid 4000g more...again, an opportunity cost. Say that he takes the 4000g he saved, and buys a pair of Gauntlets of War, the ones I mentioned earlier. The gauntlets give him +3 damage per hit. Now, you've both paid 12000g on upgrading gear, and your average damage is still 9, while his is now 9.5. Equal spending, almost equal damage. The choice of the shield is now actually inferior, because he has a crit range of 19-20, while the shield only crits on a 20. Thus, it does fall a little behind the longsword + gauntlets, but still relatively close to the power curve.

But now he's used his hand body slot, which he can't use anymore for something like Gauntlets of Str +2, while you've only spent 1 body slot on your damage. This is both good and bad. If someone sunders your shield, you lose 12000g in one shot, whereas the guy with the long sword loses 8000g. You go out and buy a new non-magical shield, and he buys a new non-magical long sword. His damage is now 1d8+3, and your damage is only 1d8. So diversification is both good and bad. Its best to find some moderation. Learning the best combinatons of items involves optimization, thats why some of us like to crunch the numbers to determine if its best to invest in a single weapon, or a few other body slots that increase damage.

So yea, a +1 Bashing shield is gonna be WAY better than a non-magical short spear, but you paid for it. You've payed to get shield proficiency by taking a class that gets it instead of a different class that does. You've paid gold, part of your Wealth By Level, which determines your characters strength, for a cool toy. If you were still doing the same damage as a short spear, something would be very wrong. You'd have resources in, and no damage out. That's what's called a BAD INVESTMENT.

D&D is all about choices. Some are inherantly better than others by .5 damage, or 1 damage, or a larger crit range, or a higher crit multiplier, or the ability to trip, or reach, or +2 to disarm attempts, or any combination of the above. Weapons that have more features or higher damage dice tend to be martial, and weapons that have multiple features and higher damage dice tend to be exotic. Again, opportunity cost dictates that you pay for bigger toys with class features, or the biggest toys with a feat.

In the end though, if you pick a weapon for flavor, chances are you will only be a bit behind in damage the most optimial weapon selection, simply because weapon dice don't vary much beyond about 3-4 points of average damage from top to bottom. For example, I just finished helping another poster here build a Paladin/Divine Crusader. He wields a long sword in both hands, as if it were a great sword. He doesn't use a great sword, because the long sword is the favored weapon of Heironeous, his patron god. The difference between the weapons base damage is (7-4.5 = 2.5) 2.5 damage per hit. I estimate the build to be able to deal ~50 damage per hit by about level 12, easily. Now, whether hes dealing 50 damage, or 53 damage per hit is not going to matter much. Sure, every little bit helps, but he's sacrificing ~3 damage per hit to keep his character in line with his roleplaying desires. Is it a huge sacrifice? No. Is is intentionally nerfing his character in the name of roleplaying? Not really.

Thats why a bashing shield is not Over Powered, as you stated. It requires cost to be in line with other things, and things of similar cost produce similar results. Its not over powered, and its not underpowered. Its pretty well balanced.

Now, if they had misprinted the DMG, and stated that Bashing makes the base damage 5d20, then it would be a huge difference between the long sword, and better cost many thousands of gold, or require a dozen feats to use, or similar, to remain balanced. If it didn't have these costs, it wouldn't be balanced, and WOULD be OP.

EDIT:

That's a good point that you have to take the +1 weapon enhancement step again for weapons to start the other properties rolling. However isn't it covered by the fact that "of Bashing" is already "considered a +1 weapon"?
Also what's your stance on weapon enhancements to shields. Do they add + to damage or only to hit? The rules seem to indicate only to hit (not damage).
Even so that only makes the weapon chant costs similar instead of less. Consider a shield with +5 weapon costs or more. That's at least 50,000 gp and the extra 4,000 gp for the "of Bashing" is nearly trivial. And you get the same stuff (unless you go the no + to damage way) plus maybe free AC.
Or go the low end way, a Shield+1 of Bashing costs 4,000, a Flaming Spear +1 costs 8,000 for same stuff.
No, you need to upgrade the shield as a weapon, which is different from upgrading it as a shield. Shields cost (X^2 * 1000) gold, armor costs (X^2 * 2000) gold. Bashing gives a +1 enhancement bonus, as Fax quoted above, but as a weapon, its not a +1 weapon. You would still have to pay for the base +1 as a weapon, even though it's superfluous for adding damage. An Adamantine weapon gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, but its not a magical weapon. So you pay 2000g to enchant it as a weapon, and it still only gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage. Similarly, a Bashing shield gives a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, but as a weapon, it is unenchanted. So you pay 2000g to enchant it as a weapon, and it gets a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage which replaces that from Bashing, but at least it has the base on it so that you can upgrade it with other enhancements.

And to answer your question, yes, a shield enchanted as a weapon, payed for as a weapon gets the full enhancement bonus to BOTH hit and damage, just like any other weapon would get.

See the rest of my post above. In the very late game, the differences between the 54000g you paid for a +5 Bashing shield or the 50000g for the long sword +5 and the +4000g for the Gauntlets of War come out pretty even. Even without the Gauntlets, a late game fighter should be dealing 50-60 damage per hit. If your fighter is doing 58 damage per hit, and mine is only doing 55 damage per hit, we'll still kill the 200 hp monster in 4 hits, so the difference is negligable, similar to the great sword/long sword paladin example I gave above. Make sense?

But yes, the middle ground is tough.
Thats why we LOVE to spend all this time debating and crunching numbers. If one thing was CLEARLY way stronger than others, there would be no debate. But most things are pretty even, so in some cases you get a bit more damage, and in others you get a little less.

And as for elemental damage, sometimes you hit vulnerabilities and sometimes you hit resistances. Sometimes its good to buy Coca-Cola stock, other times its good to buy Pepsi stock. The problem is, you often know as little about what monsters your DM will throw at you than you know what the stock market is going to do in the next day. Maybe you win a bit of bonus damage because you have a +1 flaming sword and you fight a white dragon one day, and the next you fight 3 fire elementals. Was the fire damage a good upgrade? Should you have gotten frost instead? Should you have waited, saved your money, and gotten Holy? You can't really find out without information from the DM (undead heavy campaign, get holy and forget about wounding and frost, or demon heavy campaign, forget fire and shock and get holy and sacred). Magic Item Compendium has an enchancement bonus call Collision which does a flat +5 "weapon" type damage for a +2 equiv. While it does 2 points less average damage than a Flaming + Frost weapon (7-5=2) its also not subject to resistances. Is 2 less damage worth the piece of mind that you'll never have to worry about energy resistances again? Maybe, but you won't know until afterwards. Make sense?

I hope you read this whole post, and it makes sense to you. The game designers had a TON of things to consider regarding the number crunching of the mechanics. Some things come out a little ahead, others a little behind, but for the most part, things come out in a pretty narrow deadband of power. Some things are a little above the band, others are a little below, but the standard deviation is low. Things that are WAY above that line, or way below it, are what people consider OP and underpowered respectively. Things that fall in that deadband are not OP.

Simanos

2009-01-15, 02:40 PM

+1 long sword 1d8+1 (average 5.5) 2000 gp
+1 bash shield 2d6+1 (average 8) 4000 gp

+1 Longsword Flaming (average 9) 8000 gp OOPS!
+2 Longsword 1d8+2 (average 6.5) 8000 gp OOPS! :smalltongue:

Why are you wasting so many walls of text and not realize the obvious? (and force me to read them :smallcool: )

Now I know that my example above is not totally correct. The sword has almost 5% more average damage from crits (the +2 has non-canonized 5% more chance to hit) but the Shield can also provide 3 AC and costs not slightly less, it costs HALF.
The +1/+1 of Bashing really has to go. Just let it be considered a magic weapon with no bonuses (to start with).
Also the size thing opens it up with abuse. Large, Enlarge, Powerful Build have been mentioned. I'd rather have it a simple +1d6 always.

"No, you need to upgrade the shield as a weapon, which is different from upgrading it as a shield. Shields cost (X^2 * 1000) gold, armor costs (X^2 * 2000) gold. Bashing gives a +1 enhancement bonus, as Fax quoted above, but as a weapon, its not a +1 weapon. You would still have to pay for the base +1 as a weapon, even though it's superfluous for adding damage."
So you mean to split the pluses?
And you're wrong. Bashing explicitly says it makes the shield a +1 weapon. And the magic armor section (SRD same page, scroll up) also says it gives +1/+1:. We've been over this already.

About shields getting "+"s to damage, I agree, but how do you reconcile the entry in the magic armor section (start) that only mentions bonus to attack rolls? The FAQ doesn't answer that.

About the elemental damages I was complaining that between you and Fax you were hitting my argument from both sides. One was saying good, the other bad. I was saying it "averages" out and my argument is sound. And I'm right. There are creatures resistant to slashing or whatever too you know. And DRs too high to pierce. It doesn't matter so much. The problem is you guys tried to sandwich me and you just won't admit it, fess up to it.

PS: I think you're too wrapped up in what you believe is right to really understand what I'm saying in this thread. I've repeatedly said that my point isn't that bashing is the best thing there is. It's just too damn good compared to a lot of other things that ought to be better, a lot better. Also it's cheap and (size) abusable.

Keld Denar

2009-01-15, 03:49 PM

Ok, Bashing is situationally better than an alternative weapon. There, I said it. BUT, as I said earlier, its not SO much better that its OP, like you believe. And, like I said earlier, there are situations where it is worse. I've proven it, you are the one who is stubborn about it. If its not clearly superior to every other option of similar cost, its not over powered.

And regarding shield upgrade costs, 2 people have agreed that a shield needs to be enhanced as a weapon, starting from the first +1 for 2000g, even if its a Bashing shield. Bashing gives it a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage and makes it behave in almost every way as it it really were a +1 weapon, except that it really isn't. It is only emulating a +1 weapon. It is not a magic weapon, though, it is a magic shield that counts as a weapon. It still has to be upgraded like a weapon, for the price of a weapon. Thats the way it works, as clearly laid out in the DMG. I think you are the one too wrapped up in what you percieve to be an amazing thing, and I'm sorry if this is not the way you want it to work. Feel free to house rule it, but then its just that, a house rule, and not RAW.

And if you want to abuse size modifiers, there are other ways to do it better as well. An unarmed strike is typically the best way to do it with a 1handed weapon, otherwise start with a 2hander and you'll get similar results. Sure, they might not have +3 AC as well, but they will do more damage, and again, we arrive at the opportunity cost idea again. Pay for a bit more damage, or a bit more AC. Except by the time you are fully abusing sizing, its really a LOT more damage vs a little more AC. Google the "King of Smack" for more details on the abuse of sizing with unarmed strikes. Again, your shield idea is good, but not above the power curve, and thus balances, not over powered as you keep asserting.

shadowfox

2009-01-15, 04:56 PM

]
So you mean to split the pluses?
And you're wrong. Bashing explicitly says it makes the shield a +1 weapon. And the magic armor section (SRD same page, scroll up) also says it gives +1/+1:. We've been over this already

Personally, I'd like to call this one. It never, every says that the Bashing enchantment makes the shield a +1 weapon; it simply says that it grants a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Now, if effect, you're correct... But so many other things can be made correct by oversimplification.

Bashing gives it a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage and makes it behave in almost every way as it it really were a +1 weapon, except that it really isn't. It is only emulating a +1 weapon. It is not a magic weapon, though, it is a magic shield that counts as a weapon. It still has to be upgraded like a weapon, for the price of a weapon.

(Emphasis is mine.)

He's absolutely correct. Plus, if you give a +1 (Armor) Shield of Bashing a +1 weapon enchantment modifier, the base damage of a Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing* is still only 2d6+1, since enhancement bonuses don't stack.

*= You keep referring to it as "shield." Remember, though, that the spikes are what makes it seem overpowered to you. Without the spikes, it's a +1 (Armor) Heavy Shield of Bashing dealing 1d8+1 (assuming it's medium-sized).

Large, Enlarge, Powerful Build* have been mentioned.

(Emphasis mine)

Are you planning on or allowing any large-sized players in your campaign? Also, having Enlarged cast on a character is, at any rate, temporary, and you, as the DM, are allowed to decide what spells can have permanency applied to them...
Edit (addition; elaboration): If you expect players to use large-sized races for their characters, or expect them to use Enlarge often (or use permanency on it), then you have a slightly more valid fear. If you don't expect it, than you don't need to worry.

*= Again, I have yet to find this as Core. Please, if you really insist on sticking to Core, please stick to Core or show me where it is in Core. I can't find it in the Monster Manual; in fact, the only book that I know it exists in is Races of Stone.

At any rate, you've still making a mountain out of an ant hill.

The Glyphstone

2009-01-15, 05:10 PM

Powerful Build also exists for the Half-Giant in the Expanded Psionics Handbook, but that's a whole nother kettle of worms, and technically still non-core.

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2009-01-15, 06:38 PM

First of all, right from the Bashing property, "The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash." So yes, you have to spend another 2,000 gp to add a redundant +1 weapon enhancement before any other properties are added to it.

In the lower levels, you can sink 50-75% of your WBL into a bashing shield to average a few more points of damage, but as soon as you get into some higher levels and want to upgrade it you'll wish it wasn't such a money pit. A few levels after that and everyone else has an Animated shield and uses Power Attack two-handed, while you're stuck with a primary weapon that cost more to buy than theirs did and can't be used two-handed. You've spent more than them but you're behind on damage.

The only reason anyone would want to even make a shield bash attack is if they're a Crusader or a Knight and have built the character around TWF with Improved Shield Bash. In that case, they're going to be using a Bashing shield as their offhand weapon and never buy the redundant weapon enhancement bonus to upgrade it further, because they'll be spending weapon upgrade money on their primary weapon. In that case, they'll need to spend another feat on Oversized TWF or go with a light shield, but it would still probably be worth it for that specific build. No other character would/should prefer to use a Bashing shield over a more standard weapon, because in the long run it would be a very suboptimal choice due to being a waste of money.

Base weapon damage size "abuse" doesn't exist. You could have a Goliath with the Major Titan Bloodline, Monkeygrip, Augmented Expansion, and a +1 Bashing Heavy Spiked Shield with +1 Sizing Balanced on it. He could wield a weapon as though he were Colossal+, and he could wield that shield if it were Colossal++, for 8d6 base weapon damage. The same character could dip one level into Druid or Archivist and wield a Quarterstaff with Shillelagh cast on it for the exact same base weapon damage, but investing 0 gp and even be able to wield it two-handed. In either case, that character is wasting his time because he could have just taken Power Attack and Leap Attack and been better off. Plus Power Attack doesn't get completely ruined by a lowly CR 0 hallway.

Therefore, a +1 Bashing heavy spiked shield is viable in the right build, or not worth it for nearly every character.

Random NPC

2009-01-16, 06:22 AM

+1 long sword 1d8+1 (average 5.5) 2000 gp
+1 bash shield 2d6+1 (average 8) 4000 gp

+1 Longsword Flaming (average 9) 8000 gp OOPS!
+2 Longsword 1d8+2 (average 6.5) 8000 gp OOPS! :smalltongue:

You should know that the averages are worth nothing. It's what's added on top of the weapon damage that makes you all mighty and powerful. A +2 dagger has an average damage of 4.5, and it WILL outdamage a shield of bashing in the hands of a dual wielding Rogue(straight). It will do more damage if you add 3 levels of swashbuckler and even more damage if you make it an elf with the Champion of Corellon PrC.

Big averages don't matter.

Simanos

2009-01-16, 09:51 AM

Ok, Bashing is situationally better than an alternative weapon. There, I said it. BUT, as I said earlier, its not SO much better that its OP, like you believe. And, like I said earlier, there are situations where it is worse. I've proven it, you are the one who is stubborn about it. If its not clearly superior to every other option of similar cost, its not over powered.
Well it took you long enough. To admit something that's truth and yet you and many others have given me grief * for so long. Remember I said that I think a shield bash should never be better than a main weapon. S&B, TWF there seems to be problems there. If you make shields for two-handed use (like in 1st ed) then that creates more problems. A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP. Explain to me why you think it SHOULD give +1/+1 bonus. Isn't the +2 size enough already? Otherwise it should cost +2 bonus not +1 only.

*
You should know that the averages are worth nothing. It's what's added on top of the weapon damage that makes you all mighty and powerful. A +2 dagger has an average damage of 4.5, and it WILL outdamage a shield of bashing in the hands of a dual wielding Rogue(straight). It will do more damage if you add 3 levels of swashbuckler and even more damage if you make it an elf with the Champion of Corellon PrC.

Big averages don't matter.
You see what I'm up against Keld?

Keld Denar

2009-01-16, 10:02 AM

Omg, seriously, it doesn't freakin matter. I admitted its better, but its not better by ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT! And certainly not for very long. An extra point of damage per hit when you are talking about 40-50 damage hits is IRRELEVANT!!!!! Please stop acting like I just said "OMG, BASHING SHIELDS ARE THE BEST THING EVAR", because I didn't. Like I've been saying for my last....4 posts?...base weapon damage doesn't matter, not past about 2nd level, at which point you can't even BUY a +2 equiv shield. Its not OP. Not at all, even a little bit. Its right there on the power curve where it should be. Not too high, not too low, but pretty much right in the middle.

I've said it, RandomNPC has said it, Biffoniacus_Furiou has said it, lilhowie624, and now Signmarkerens has said it. No one thinks that a bashing shield is OVERPOWERED but you.

Polymorph is overpowered...bashing shields are decidedly not.

Signmaker

2009-01-16, 10:10 AM

It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances.

You realize that it's only a better primary weapon in unusual circumstances, correct? For one, you're most likely investing a feat to be better at using the shield. For another, the +1 bonus only applies when used to bash, thus signifying that any weapon enhancements you apply (the magic weapon tree) automatically overwrite the pitiful +1/+1 bonus you keep harping about. It's a transparent bonus that only applies in the short time that you don't have enough gp to afford the melee enhancements. A few levels at most, big deal.

Lastly, as I keep mentioning, you're swinging a large metal object at someone. Why should that be significantly weaker than a sword swing? Or a mace swing, for that matter? I'd understand the fact that it would be a bit unwieldy in comparison to the sword, but once you connect, it should smart quite a bit.

Random NPC

2009-01-16, 11:18 AM

Well it took you long enough. To admit something that's truth and yet you and many others have given me grief * for so long. Remember I said that I think a shield bash should never be better than a main weapon. S&B, TWF there seems to be problems there. If you make shields for two-handed use (like in 1st ed) then that creates more problems. A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP. Explain to me why you think it SHOULD give +1/+1 bonus. Isn't the +2 size enough already? Otherwise it should cost +2 bonus not +1 only.

1) I resent the comment.

2) Shield of Bashing is not more powerful than a main weapon

Let's assume I created a Human Fighter level 4 who wants to go the Broad and Sword way. Let's assume he bought a +1 Flaming Longsword Dagger and a Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing. It seems reasonable to have 18 Strength by this level. As for feats, I want "optimal", so I went

Lvl 1: Shield Specialization: Heavy , Improved Shield Bashing (fighter), Agile Shield Fighter (human)
Lvl 2: Weapon Focus: Longsword Dagger (fighter)
Lvl 3: Power Attack
Lvl 4: Weapon Specialization: Longsword Dagger (fighter)

Let's say my character gets close to that Bugbear and delivers a full round attack on him (+8/+7 to attack)

Damage from my sword. 1d8 1d4 (base) + 1 (enhancement) +1 d6 (flaming) + 4 (Strength) + 2 (Specialization) = 15 13 average
Damage from my shield. 2d6 (base) + 1 (enhancement) + 2 (Strength) = 10 average.

You might say, well, the sword is more expensive, still, we can make it a puny +1, costing half as much as the shield and you will get more damage average than your shield of Bashing. With only a +1 dagger you have a 9.5 and that's a whooping .5 average damage less than the shield of bashing.

Why? Longswords Daggers suck, they are suboptimal for a B&S build, and it still does more damage. That's because of all the pluses. That's what makes the hunk of your damage. All your damage comes from sneak attack, power attack, strength or whatever. Not from the weapon. So even with the +1/+1, the shield will fall behind your weapon.

You can make the shield do more damage by specializing more, but then it's not really an offhand weapon and it's pretty much your focus because you SPECIALIZED ON IT.

3) If you truly expect the Shield Bash to be a last option especially when you SPEND A FEAT TO SHIELD BASH, then you are doing wrong. Shield bash should be an option for warriors who go S&B and they should really think about implementing it often and as soon as they get within range.

It's not overpowered. It's viable and it works well for a fighter that wants to go that route.

If you are worried that it might overpower a Two-Weapon Fighter, well, Rogues will do more damage than you by level 4.

EDIT: edited for hilarity.

shadowfox

2009-01-16, 12:09 PM

Although it may be a blessing to be ignored in some situations, I'm still going to make a logical, coherent argument in somebody's favor.

So, Simanos, here I go:

Ok, Bashing is situationally better than an alternative weapon.
(Emphasis mine.)

Simanos, he never fully agreed with you. In fact, he can't fully agree with you; you're argument is that a +1 (Armor) Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is better than every weapon in presented in Core. By agreeing that it's situationally better, he's that, depending on the situation, it can be better. But that doesn't cover all the situations that you've brought up.

No offense, but you need to read a bit more carefully, as well as look for comments like the one I quoted. You're looking for the information that you want to see, and, as a result, you misread and misunderstand some things (resulting in you praising yourself and insulting them, but also suddenly being kind and nice to them) or you read too literally, knit-picking the smallest spelling error or mix-up of words, despite how the post itself, if you read on, reveals that, although some things were mixed up, it still makes sense once you take note of the confusion of moving things around.

Calm down, relax, and take some deep breaths. Then, respond in a kind and civil manner.

Also, I'd like to point out that, although it may not have started out that way (or was even originally listed), people have started using purely Core examples (which also takes into account of RAW plus errata), and yet you still use non-Core examples. Please, if you get upset for people using non-Core examples, don't use them yourself.

Simanos

2009-01-16, 07:08 PM

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

Because some people miss the obvious I start and end with the "mission statement" :smallcool:

Let's look at size first:
Format: Shortspear / Shield / Longsword
Medium: 1d6 / 2d6 /1d8
Large: 1d8 / 3d6 / 2d6
Huge: 2d6 / 4d6 / 3d6
Gargantuan: 3d6 / 6d6 / 4d6
Colossal: 4d6 / 8d6 / 6d6
Clearly a problem there. Beware the Giants bearing shields... :smallwink:

Next let's tackle cost:
Low end you already agreed, Shield of Bashing +1 for 4,000 gp equals Merciful Shortspear +1 for half cost. Nearly equals Longsword too, again for half price.
How about higher up?
Merciful Shortpear +4 for 50,000 gp
Shield of Bashing +4 for 4,000+32,000= 36,000 gp
Both same damage at 2d6+4
OOPS! :smallredface:

Finally, "base weapon damage doesn't matter, not past about 2nd level" and similar issues. Yes, it does. Just like every "+" on a weapon +5 does matter and not only the other 4.
"Why should that be significantly weaker than a sword swing? Or a mace swing, for that matter?"
Because one is a killing weapon and the other is merely something to keep the enemy from killing you and perhaps at some times push him back.
"I'd understand the fact that it would be a bit unwieldy in comparison to the sword, but once you connect, it should smart quite a bit."
Well if you understand, why did you ask? And there's no way the spikes of an unwieldy shield would "smart"(?) as much as a deadly sword or spear.

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

Mushroom Ninja

2009-01-16, 07:19 PM

Simanos

2009-01-16, 07:38 PM

Wait a minute. You think that because, in your view of the game shields should suck, and, given the right circumstances, shields can, arguably, rival swords, Shields of Bashing are OP? I guess you and I have different definitions of OP.
Can you guys please stop misrepresenting my view in such strawmen?
I did only put it in bold, twice.
(Shields also get AC bonus aside from damage in TWF, though not in S&B)

Keld Denar

2009-01-16, 07:56 PM

Sigh...

Oh, and you modeled your bashing shield wrong. Since bashing counts as 1 size up, its already size large. Since things can't advance past collosal, it gets suck at 6d6, compared to a greatsword, which legally CAN go up to 8d8. Still small beans to unarmed strikes, which can get up to what, 14d6? As I said before, if you want to abuse size modifiers, someone else can do it better than you.

And you don't PAY for a +5 weapon, you have a caster cast GMW on you. Its far more economical than paying 200,000 for a stupid +5 weapon with +5 worth of doodads on it. And if you do spend 200,000g on one you buy a +1 Keen Holy Collision Wounding Transmuting weapon, and get a GMW, and you have a +14 weapon pre-Epic.

And once again, you are comparing a short spear with a shield. Shields require proficencies which not every class gets, while everyone but Monks and Wizards can use shortspears. Since it's a low proficiency, of course its gonna have weak damage. Thats like saying a $20 bill is worth more than a $10 bill. Of course it is.

The point that you keep missing though, is that when you have $100,000 in your bank account, the difference between a $10 bill and a $20 bill isn't very much in relation. Sure, it would be nice to have the $20 bill in your hand, because duh, $20 is more than $10, but if you are gonna go out and buy a house, what matters is that you have $100,000 in the bank, not $20 in your hand.

Extrapolate alagory to weapons. If you are a fully buffed fighter with a 2handed weapon and you are PAing for a lot, and getting lots of bonus damage from str, and getting a lot of bonus damage from your weapon enhancements, and buffs like a bard's IC, then you're bonus damage is like that $100,000 sitting in the bank. You are gonna be doing about +40-50 damage per hit. Now, the difference between your shield, assuming you COULD use it 2handed vs a long sword (not even optimal) wielded 2handed is the difference of 3ish points of damage. Lets say you the fighter deals 50 damage with his long sword, and you do 53 damage with your shield. Thats about a 4.5% increase in damage. Sure, it would be nice to do 3 more damage, but its hardly matters much at that point. Thats the difference between balanced and over powered. If you were doing like 80 damage in a similar situation, while a guy with a great sword is only doing 50, and everything else is identical except the weapon, then there would be a big power difference, and whatever it is that is causing that 30 point difference would be considered OP. 5% difference in damage, decidedly not OP.

Plus, there are other reasons to pick weapons. Crit range is one. A shield crits on a 20, for x2, which is the worst in the game. It also can't be used with Finesse, one of the most commonly use tactics for TWFers. It also isn't a school weapon for any of the 9 disciplines in Tome of Battle, so no bonuses there.

EDIT:
And since you don't want your "mission statement" to be ignored, there is no "last ditch" in D&D. There is no "last minute draw boot dagger and stab bad guy in the heart" like in the movies. Instead of spending all that cash on some elaborate shield, you could have spent it on a second weapon of the same type. If you lost the first one for some reason, you could draw the other and continue attacking. If you have any weapon related feats or abilities, you'd be better off using something similar, rather than relying on a backup weapon. For example, one of the main characters I'm using in Afroakuma's challenge is an Exotic Weapon's Master. He's using a Dwarven Urgrosh (only 1d8 main weapon damage, oh darn). If he were to get disarmed, he'd lost access to his Flurry of Strikes ability, which gives him an extra attack per round, and the Uncanny Blow ability, which gives him 2:1 bonus from his str, instead of 1.5:1. Thus, even if he only got 1 attack in a round drawing a 2nd Urgrosh cause the first one got sundered or something, he'd still do more damage in 2 rounds with it than he would in 2 rounds trying to Bash with his Animated Shield, even though that first round he'd only get 1 attack, instead of a full attack.

EDIT2: And if you were using a shield, and after making all of your attacks with your main hand, decided you wanted to add a bash with your offhand, you couldn't, since you need to declare TWF prior to starting your attacks, due to the penalties involved. Thus, its not a "last ditch" I need 1 more hit to kill this thing, where am I gonna get one. You either plan to take the extra attack before you roll any dice, at which point you are TWF with shields (lulz, talk about no damage), or you don't. There is no "last ditch" about that either.

Signmaker

2009-01-16, 08:34 PM

"Why should that be significantly weaker than a sword swing? Or a mace swing, for that matter?"
Because one is a killing weapon and the other is merely something to keep the enemy from killing you and perhaps at some times push him back.
"I'd understand the fact that it would be a bit unwieldy in comparison to the sword, but once you connect, it should smart quite a bit."
Well if you understand, why did you ask? And there's no way the spikes of an unwieldy shield would "smart"(?) as much as a deadly sword or spear.

So, according to you, getting punctured by multiple spikes isn't as 'deadly' as a sword or spear? Excuse me?

Yes, I stated that it is unwieldy. Usually, the unwieldiness of an item would refer to attack bonus, not to the damage values you keep arguing about. Frankly put, base damage matters increasingly less the higher you go up the CL ladder. Unless you are ridiculously huge and are flurrying unarmed strikes for Who-Knows-How-Many d6 a swing, base damage is usually a very insignificant percentage of damage.

You want an overpowered +1 ability towards melee attacks? Try Impaling. 3 times per day, your piercing weapon becomes a touch attack. Guess what Power Attackers? You get to PA for essentially full. Add in lance multipliers, mounted charge, etc. THAT is something that is just ridiculous. The difference between a 2d6 and a 1d8? Not all that much, especially since the point in which you can efficiently afford such a shield (mind you, this is not "ooh, WBL means I can barely buy it." I mean you actually have gp set aside for other things.) the damage output starts to dramatically scale upwards, due to a combination of outside sources and efficient feat usage.

EDIT: Got ahead of myself.

shadowfox

2009-01-16, 09:13 PM

Can you guys please stop misrepresenting my view in such strawmen?
I did only put it in bold, twice.
(Shields also get AC bonus aside from damage in TWF, though not in S&B)

1) Keep an argument, and stick with it. You jump back and forth, not only trying to counter someone else's argument against your views, but then bringing up another argument that's only related via technicality. You compare it to RAW, and people find something in RAW that is insignificantly worse, the same, or better than what you give an example to. Following up with something else in RAW to further your own point (which was just disproven) is pointless.
2) There's always a kind way of putting things.

3) And I quote:

he Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
(from http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

I'd like to point out that, even if Mushroom Ninja us pulling a strawman argument, the same could be said for you.

(Shields also get AC bonus aside from damage in TWF, though not in S&B)

You're arguing about damage. You started arguing about damage. So, speak of damage. Plus, you fail to mention "with a feat" anywhere there, assume that you're hypothetical S&B fighter example didn't take Improved Shield Bash while your dual-wielding shield TWF fighter did, and fail to acknowledge the purpose of S&B. You're skewing your argument in a bad attempt at making Mushroom Ninja look like an idiot, which, actually...

Wait a minute. You think that because, in your view of the game shields should suck, and, given the right circumstances, shields can, arguably, rival swords, Shields of Bashing are OP? I guess you and I have different definitions of OP.

Considering what he was replying to, he hit the bullseye. You're saying that a shield bash should be a last-ditch attack, and shouldn't be able to compete with normal weapons. And, the funny thing is, Mushroom Ninja didn't even oversimplify your statement. Rather, you started making you argument sound complicated. Putting in lots of words doesn't make it a better argument. (If it did, I'd win a lot more arguments...) You only said a lot of words with a little bit of meaning (and that's not even simplifying your statement down to its simplest form).

And then, I'm sorry, but I have to circle back around to this: you bring up irrelevant arguments. You've made your point that a shortspear, no matter what kind of enchantments it has, isn't better than your shield build. But, then again, you overlook and oversimplify so many things:
1) We keep talking about a creature whose base size is medium. Such a standard makes arguing easier, as there's actually something to compare everything to.
2) You're keep calling it a "shield." Please, whether it's Light or Heavy, and Spiked or not makes a HUGE difference in your own argument. It's you're going to argue, provide all the appropriate, and relative, information.
3) When was the last time you saw someone wield a shortspear as their main weapon? Please, the only reason I've seen someone use a Spiked Chain or Scythe in battle was because I chose to use them.
4) The basis of argument class-wise is the fighter class, which has unofficially been established as for simplicity's sake. Now, may I please redirect you to my third point, but changing one word? When was the last time you saw a fighter wield a shortspear as their main weapon? I mean, please, the Scythe is better than the Shortspear in almost every aspect (except throwing range, which shortspear wins by default, but we're not arguing about throwing weapons here).
5) I could argue a number of loosely related arguments, such as a rogue Feinting in combat, but I won't. Because, if I'm going to make another counter-argument, it'll be relevant. Unfortunately, people are swift...

Biffoniacus_Furiou

2009-01-16, 09:54 PM

It doesn't matter that the bashing shield is better than a shortspear, that is an argument over simple weapon vs martial weapon. Let's see a Sorcerer or a Cleric or a conscripted army of low-level Commoners and Experts make better use of bashing shields than they could do with nonmagical shortspears. The advantage is situational at best, therefore not broken or overpowered.

A +1 Bashing spiked heavy shield costs 4,180 gp and deals an average of 8 base weapon damage. A +1 Longsword costs 2,315 gp and deals an average of 5.5 base weapon damage, with a threat range of 19-20. A difference of 2.5 damage is 1d4, so you're paying 1,865 gp for +1d4 damage, not even counting the threat range or the fact that you could two-hand the longsword for 1.5 Str.

Most characters would only shield bash as a last ditch effort, but there are plenty of builds which make good use of TWF with Improved Shield Bash. As I said before, those characters would probably prefer to use a +1 Bashing shield as their offhand weapon due to the low cost, but not spend extra money on redundant enhancements to further enchant it. In that case, a Bashing shield is an obvious choice for their offhand weapon, but not so good that it replaces their main hand weapon.

There are very few colossal-size opponents who actually wield complex weapons in this game. Most giants are large or huge size, and at level 8-15 an extra 1d6 base weapon damage is completely negligible. Of the ones that are that big, very few even use armor or shields, likely due to the prohibitively high amount of materials. Let's look at a colossal-size giant: the Mountain Giant from MM2. He has a +22 BAB and a +16 Str modifier. Wielding a +1 Bashing Spiked Heavy Shield he gets +31/+26/+21/+16 to hit, dealing 8d6+17 (6d6+17 as-written) damage, averaging 45 damage per hit. With his club he gets +30/+25/+20/+15, dealing 4d8+24 damage, averaging 42 damage per hit, with a 19-20 threat range. He has Power Attack. If the shield wielding version power attacks for -5 to hit, he averages 50 damage. If the club wielding version power attacks for -4 to hit (same total attack bonus) he averages 50 damage, still with a 19-20 threat range. Power Attack for any more than that and the club passes the shield in damage. Replace Improved Critical with Weapon Focus (or Improved Shield Bash) and the club passes the shield in damage power attacking at -2. That's not even considering that he isn't even proficient with the shield, meaning he takes a -4 to hit for martial nonproficiency, and another -1 to attacks for the shield's armor check penalty. The argument about giants using big shields to bash is completely negated by their high Str and their tendency to use two-handed weapons with power attack.

You make a primary melee character whose primary weapon is a shield with the Bashing property, and someone else will make a primary melee character at the same ECL that has an equal or higher AC, equal or higher attack bonus, does equal or higher damage on average, and has an equal or higher threat range.

Random NPC

2009-01-16, 11:37 PM

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

Short answer:
http://philipscheel.net/facepalm.jpg

Long answer:
It's not better than a primary weapon unless you make the shield YOUR primary weapon. PLUSES. Dices don't really make your average big. Puses are.

And if you are using Shield Bash for a last ditch option:

- You shouldn't waste a feat on it. Feats are precious and not for last ditch options.
- You shouldn't waste any money in it because no matter what, that shield won't make enough damage as your main weapon. Never.
- You lose more than you gain (AC for that puny damage).

Signmaker

2009-01-17, 01:04 AM

Short answer:

So that's the fabled Picard-falm..

Apparently, you have made it so.

Simanos

2009-01-17, 12:54 PM

{Scrubbed}

Lappy9000

2009-01-17, 01:15 PM

WHY DON'T YOU ADMIT YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT?Normally, in a debate, the point of the arguing is to come to a common agreement (ie. Is shield bashing overpowered? Yes/No/Maybe/A little). Trying to "win" an argument will just result in a lot of pointless squabbling.

Your insulting tone sure isn't helping.

Simanos

2009-01-17, 01:22 PM

Normally, in a debate, the point of the arguing is to come to a common agreement (ie. Is shield bashing overpowered? Yes/No/Maybe/A little). Trying to "win" an argument will just result in a lot of pointless squabbling.

Your insulting tone sure isn't helping.
How is that insulting?

"WHY DON'T YOU ADMIT YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT? There are other, better ones, to attack my position."

I'm not saying he's an idiot. I'm saying he's whipping a dead horse when there are live ones near by. It's a plain 2+2 thing and it should be put to rest so we could focus on the more controversial sides of this debate (like the crit threat for instance, that's a good argument).

I'm using capital letters to draw his attention to that part of my post because it was a wall of text and he might skim it instead of read it thoroughly. (I wouldn't hold it against him, at this point we're going in circles).
If he finds it insulting I hereby ask him to tell me so and I will change the capitals. OK?

My post #84 still stands:

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

Because some people miss the obvious I start and end with the "mission statement" :smallcool:

Let's look at size first:
Format: Shortspear / Shield / Longsword
Medium: 1d6 / 2d6 /1d8
Large: 1d8 / 3d6 / 2d6
Huge: 2d6 / 4d6 / 3d6
Gargantuan: 3d6 / 6d6 / 4d6
Colossal: 4d6 / 8d6 / 6d6
Clearly a problem there. Beware the Giants bearing shields... :smallwink:

Next let's tackle cost:
Low end you already agreed, Shield of Bashing +1 for 4,000 gp equals Merciful Shortspear +1 for half cost. Nearly equals Longsword too, again for half price.
How about higher up?
Merciful Shortpear +4 for 50,000 gp
Shield of Bashing +4 for 4,000+32,000= 36,000 gp
Both same damage at 2d6+4
OOPS! :smallredface:

Finally, "base weapon damage doesn't matter, not past about 2nd level" and similar issues. Yes, it does. Just like every "+" on a weapon +5 does matter and not only the other 4.
"Why should that be significantly weaker than a sword swing? Or a mace swing, for that matter?"
Because one is a killing weapon and the other is merely something to keep the enemy from killing you and perhaps at some times push him back.
"I'd understand the fact that it would be a bit unwieldy in comparison to the sword, but once you connect, it should smart quite a bit."
Well if you understand, why did you ask? And there's no way the spikes of an unwieldy shield would "smart"(?) as much as a deadly sword or spear.

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

Lappy9000

2009-01-17, 01:30 PM

How is that insulting?In itself, maybe not. I just didn't want to point out everything that could be read as insulting.

You're really bad at analogies aren't you?

You lose. Again.

Or you lack imagination too.

Why instead of creating strawmen don't you actually try and counter my specific examples for a change? Oh, wait. Because you can't. There's nothing you can find wrong with them.

How about you answer my hard numbers posts with some actual numbers too that actually contradict mine and not go off on a tangent?

Then again, with you, I never know. You never seize to surprise me. In a bad way.

Read the thread again. You are not the first (or second) to make them. Your comparisons are wrong. Bad at math or at logic.

Wait, you didn't get that until just now? Wow... :smallsigh:

I guess the pics you posted are meant for your own ineptitude.
Whether or not you meant them to be, those sound pretty harsh. It'd probably be a good idea to avoid posting things like "Therefore you are bad at...." and "You lose." Both can come off as quite inflammatory.

Signmaker

2009-01-17, 02:04 PM

My post #84 still stands:

You see, sir, the problem with comparing base weapon damage is that it hardly matters, as we keep trying to tell you. Yes, shields are slightly more powerful than a couple of no-gimmick swords in the PHB. However, you fail to factor in time after time such additives as Two-Handed Str bonus, Power Attack bonus, weapon special attacks (tripping, range, etc.). If you insist on comparing it to a shortspear, a one-handed simple weapon that you're actually meant to throw (most range incremented weapons aren't meant to be meleed), then I really can't 'win' your argument. Congrats, you beat a mook-class weapon.

You mention that you can finesses light shields. Yes, true! By all means, have fun when your +1 Bashing Spiked Light Shield does all of 1d8+1 base weapon damage.

Seeing as I've actually played through a TWFing shield-maiden before, I can attest that your small bonus that you argue is so greatly overpowered really isn't. I got to about 10th level before I was essentially averaging the same damage as an unoptimized fighter. Why is that? Because at that point, the different between a 3d6 shield and a 2d4 scythe meant nothing to the Hydra wanting to eat us. The shield bash action alone just wasn't enough to really compete in a more optimized campaign. Most of our damage in the end came from Cleric Buffs and Bard songs, where I could attempt a power attack for some extra bits of damage, and the scyther began to murder.

Yes, you can tweak a shield-user to do some really ridiculous things, far more powerful than just a die increase. For example, using non-Core:

Shield Charge- Free trip at the end of a charge using a shield bash.
Shield Slam- Either using a full attack or a charge, any hit triggers a Fort Save or dazed.
Shield Ward- Shields now guard against touch attacks, as well as versus several special attacks.
Blood-Spiked Charge- Congrats, you are now Sonic the Hedgehog.

While a shield may possibly be overpowered for whatever weapon tier you're pitting it against, that really isn't a fair reason to nerf bashing, as you've previously stated you would do. Why? Because, you're only comparing base weapon damage to cost, and absolutely nothing else. You haven't looked at Chain cheese(core), at high critical multipliers(core, see scythe or charger), at a Dragonfire-Inspired Bard dual wielding daggers and causing over 10-20d6 fire damage per turn(non-core). Simply put, there are far more 'overpowered' methods in which one can ramp up weapon damage than bashing.

Simanos

2009-01-17, 02:12 PM

Whether or not you meant them to be, those sound pretty harsh. It'd probably be a good idea to avoid posting things like "Therefore you are bad at...." and "You lose." Both can come off as quite inflammatory.
The "lose" parts are tongue in cheek. The bad analogy was truly wondering (at first).
If a comparison has bad logic and/or is bad at math, aren't I allowed to say it is "Bad at math or at logic"?
If someone makes repeatedly such errors, what does that say about him? I'm not going around calling people idiots at random.
I'm just defending my position with sound argument and met with fallacy after fallacy for my troubles.
However I can see what you are saying and what you are trying to do. So I'll say you're right (even though you aren't) and I'll apologize for any hurt feelings I caused. But I also ask you to put your "ass" on the line and comment on the actual subject. It's kinda like "I dare" you, but less juvenile, or at least veiled to appear so. :smalltongue:

Signmakerens, the argument about a small + not mattering has been dealt with already. Read my previous posts. If it doesn't matter then why not make any change I want to base damage? Why not make Daggers 1d6, it doesn't matter. Or Longspears 1d12. Because it does matter in some ways. In math (mechanics) and in fluff and flavor. The small bonuses are what adds up to the big total.

I've also dealt with the non-Core issues. As you point out there's splat feats about any weapon, including shields. I wouldn't allow any of that crap (unless it was something very reasonable) in my games, like I'm changing many things from Core too. Bashing is just one of many.
Your only good point is that Light Shields are not so good. 1d8 vs 1d4 or even 1d6 of other light weapons isn't big enough a difference. But if you're Large or bigger it starts to take off again (relatively speaking). Then there's guys who wield 2 Scimitars or Longswords, their equivalent would be 2 Heavy Shields. No size problem there.
Also you're all playing your warriors as damage dealers and not tanks.

PS: The Shortspear is definetely not meant to be thrown. It's meant to be used with a shield in melee. The Javelin is for throwing. The Shortspear "can" be thrown. "Can" and "meant" are not the same.

Lappy9000

2009-01-17, 02:38 PM

The "lose" parts are tongue in cheek.Well then, if that's true, it's the sort of thing you need to put in your post to avoid any potential offense.

However I can see what you are saying and what you are trying to do. So I'll say you're right (even though you aren't) and I'll apologize for any hurt feelings I caused.Isn't about being right, I just know (from personal experience) that people can forget their netiquette when embroiled in a spirited debate and I just don't want anyone to summon/feel the righteous wrath of Roland St. Jude :smallwink:

But I also ask you to put your "ass" on the line and comment on the actual subject.For example, was that statement really necessary over a simple, "Okay, but please remain on-topic?"

To do so, from what I've read so far, Shields of Bashing don't appear to be over-powered.

I'll back out now.

Keld Denar

2009-01-17, 02:47 PM

Unfortuantely, sarcasm and "tongue-in-cheek" comments don't come across well in the world of text based responses. If it looks insulting, even if it is not intended that way, it will most likely be interpreted as insulting. You could put some kind of tag on it, labling it as sarcasm, but that kind of defeats the whole purpose of using sarcasm. Thus, don't.

As for an uber +1 whatevered shield used as a weapon compared to an actual uber +1 sword, how are you getting it as 1/2 price? You have to pay for all of the weapon upgrades as a weapon. A +10 weapon costs 200,000 regardless of whether or not the base item is a sword, or a shield. Your shield is still technically more expensive, because you have to pay the 4000g for the Bashing enhancement. You can't pay half price for weapon upgrades on a shield, just because its a shield. I thought we estabilished this several posts ago?

And yes, you could finesse with a light shield, but you were argueing with a heavy shield because of the way you liked the size modifiers stacking. Can we just pick ONE THING to debate at a time? There are too many variables.

And if you don't believe that an optimized melee character can deal damage in the 50s range, I direct you to this character sheet (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=103009), and this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102369). Post 5 has a full attack from a level 11 melee character. His base weapon damage is only 1d8, but his average base weapon damage is 33, and then he has about 20 more damage from Dragonfire Inspiration. That was a REALLY conservative PA too, considering how buffed he was, because I didn't know anything about the monsters I was fighting and didn't want to risk missing. The next round I would have PAed for 10, and done an extra 16 base damage, bringing me up to just south of 50 per hit. And this is only a level 11 character, who was not even raging (extra 4 damage per hit). You wanted an example, here is an example. He's not even as brutal as he could have been. I considered taking Leap Attack, but didn't because I felt it would make it even more unfair.

And yea, to answer you other question, Weapon Spec is generally considered a bad feat, because its bonus is small and static. There are just too many other good feats out there, especially out of core. But you've already closed your mind about that.

So, I guess, where do you want to take this arguement? Since you seem entrenched in your belief that its OP despite at least 5 people trying to convince you that its not, and you don't get the purpose of my simplified example, then where do you suggest we go with this?

shadowfox

2009-01-17, 02:47 PM

I'm just defending my position with sound argument and met with fallacy after fallacy for my troubles.

Sound? Well, I guess. You make your points, and back them up, even if in a demeaning and disrespectful manner. But your argument has two major flaws that makes it easy to counter:
1) You assume that everyone will start using a shield as a primary weapon.
2) You disregard what level a character has to be in order to buy things.

And it doesn't help that you constantly change the argument either. Remember: your argument is that a +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is better than ALL of the other Core weapons. This, mind you, has already been disproved.

As for everyone else, we've been facing fallacy after fallacy from you for our troubles. I won't go beyond this thread itself, but you tend to highly "misinterpret" what people say, trying to make them sound like idiots for making a point that, in reality, they did not make. In addition, I suffered from fallacies from you based on using non-Core material, even though that, before that point, you had yet to tell anyone to stick to Core (and you didn't even stick to Core on your first post). If you make a rule, play by it.

But I also ask you to put your "ass" on the line and comment on the actual subject. It's kinda like "I dare" you, but less juvenile, or at least veiled to appear so. :smalltongue:

I have. In fact, I've been the only one telling you to stick to Core yourself, or to even stick to your original argument. In fact, the the extend of the latter, I've been telling you to stick to your +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing, not the +1 Spiked Heavy Adamantine Shield of Bashing (which you were rather ambiguous on whether the spikes, the shield, or both were adamantine).

However I can see what you are saying and what you are trying to do. So I'll say you're right (even though you aren't) and I'll apologize for any hurt feelings I caused.

Please, sir, we can all be adults here, whether we are by age, or through appearance through choice of words.

Shadowfox, you are wrong again. I'm arguing about damage and any free extras (like defense AC) prove my point of why said damage should be lower to be balanced and realistic. You are misrepresenting my views and going off on tangents because you can't tackle my real view. Hence strawmen.
Also when you compare the Scythe and the Shortspear, you probably meant the Spear because Shortspear is one-handed...
Then again, with you, I never know. You never seize to surprise me. In a bad way.
I MUST go on tangents because YOU constantly go on them.
You are ONLY talking about damage, since your whole argument NEEDS to link back to your first post, which FAILS to present that a +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is overpowered because a) it deals Greatsword damage (in one hand) and b) you get AC. Mind you, you started speaking of the enchantment ONLY. Though, if you want to talk AC, I'd point you back to my TWF Monkey-Gripped Bastard Sword fighter with Improved Buckler Defense. Slap a +2 enchantment on that thing (which he can afford at about the same time as the Bashing Shield), and there's the same AC defense... PLUS armor, which he could afford since level 1.
When I compared Scythe to Shortspear, I meant Shortspear. Since:

Format: Shortspear / Shield / Longsword
I was being relevant. Had I made a reference to the Spear, I would be going on a tangent, as the normal Spear was not mentioned in your post there. Therefore, I was simply being relevant to your argument.

In any case, of course I never seize to surprise you. I'm not trying to seize your surprise.
Of course, I can assume that you mean "cease," in which case I have this to say:
Of course I never cease to amaze you. To you, I'm a bumbling idiot who doesn't have anything to say and goes on tangents. Now, I won't deny that I go on tangents. I do; then again, I don't have a good ability to sort through information and find only the important bits, thanks to Asperger's Syndrome, so congrats on making fun of someone with an Autism Spectrum Disorder! (I could add in a whole lot more about my having Asperger's Syndrome, but it'd be long, related to things you've said and done, and would be classified as a "tangent" by you, despite the fact that it actually addresses issues presented in this thread that, although not having to do with the Bashing enchantment, are still issues.

However, my "tangents" are, in fact, related to the arguments you present. I don't see why I can't bring up a weapon that has yet to be given face-time, or point out that the weapon you select does not prove your point, while you can do such. Actually, I often try to prevent you from going on tangents... Though, it's not like you ever pay attention to me or anything that I say, especially when I quote the Player's Handbook. You automatically write it off as wrong, stupid, and as a tangent. Congrats, you throw away my points because you don't want to actually confront what I say.

I'm not going around calling people idiots at random.
You're right; it's not random, and you don't call people idiots. Instead, you imply that people are idiots (with little to no tact), and only to people that don't agree with your opinion.

Simanos

2009-01-18, 11:54 AM

For example, was that statement really necessary over a simple, "Okay, but please remain on-topic?"
I think you should have understood my tone in that sentence given the context. I used quotes around the word ass, I used a smiley and more importantly:
The context was me subjecting to your will for the benefit of all. Come on mate, don't take "that" the wrong way, please. You're smarter than that.
(I wasn't being a prick at your intervention. I was merely asking for your opinion in a humorous way. I even made the joke aimed at myself with "veiled to appear so". Maybe I'm bad at jokes here:smallwink:)

Care to elaborate on your opinion in regards to my true argument/position and not the strawman you mentioned?

...

Since the Shield does 2d6, it uses one less weapon chant than the Shortspear which gets Merciless for example to make up for base damage. So it costs much less. I thought you were paying attention...

Since you missed my actual opinion (too busy with people's strawmen maybe), I guess you weren't:
A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.
I only said it like 4 times already...
Try reading it RAI and not RAW. Keyword: "usual"

Sound? Well, I guess. You make your points, and back them up, even if in a demeaning and disrespectful manner. But your argument has two major flaws that makes it easy to counter:
1) You assume that everyone will start using a shield as a primary weapon.
2) You disregard what level a character has to be in order to buy things.

1) Doh! Well how else were we going to compare?
2) Not at all, since I prove it's CHEAPER!
OOPS! You are wrong again.

And it doesn't help that you constantly change the argument either. Remember: your argument is that a +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is better than ALL of the other Core weapons. This, mind you, has already been disproved.

Actually, no it isn't. I used some limiting factors like one-handed and usual circumstances and the cost thing, but thank you for your repeated strawman.

As for everyone else, we've been facing fallacy after fallacy from you for our troubles. I won't go beyond this thread itself, but you tend to highly "misinterpret" what people say, trying to make them sound like idiots for making a point that, in reality, they did not make. In addition, I suffered from fallacies from you based on using non-Core material, even though that, before that point, you had yet to tell anyone to stick to Core (and you didn't even stick to Core on your first post). If you make a rule, play by it.

Oh, the IRONY!

I have. In fact, I've been the only one telling you to stick to Core yourself, or to even stick to your original argument. In fact, the the extend of the latter, I've been telling you to stick to your +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing, not the +1 Spiked Heavy Adamantine Shield of Bashing (which you were rather ambiguous on whether the spikes, the shield, or both were adamantine).

You do know there's stuff like Ogres and Giants with Shields in Core, right?
You're right though that when I brought up the Adamantine thing it was totally unnecessary and probably foolishly hasty of me. It's irrelevant too.

Please, sir, we can all be adults here, whether we are by age, or through appearance through choice of words.

Well, I don't see anyone else apologizing for attempts at ridicule and ganging up and various other things...

I MUST go on tangents because YOU constantly go on them.
You are ONLY talking about damage, since your whole argument NEEDS to link back to your first post, which FAILS to present that a +1 Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing is overpowered because a) it deals Greatsword damage (in one hand) and b) you get AC. Mind you, you started speaking of the enchantment ONLY. Though, if you want to talk AC, I'd point you back to my TWF Monkey-Gripped Bastard Sword fighter with Improved Buckler Defense. Slap a +2 enchantment on that thing (which he can afford at about the same time as the Bashing Shield), and there's the same AC defense... PLUS armor, which he could afford since level 1.

No, I do not. I am judging a weapon as a whole. My whole point is that shields are a defensive tool and hence shouldn't give as good an attack as a Shortspear. Hence, I'm allowed to reference the AC bonuses. Also your Large Bastard Sword does 2d8, my Large Shield does 3d6. It's a bit closer than a Large Longsword 2d6, but still...
Same feats spent, and my shield costs LESS.
And what's more, that still doesn't make all the other weapons that suck compared to "my" shield any better. Which is my point. That "most" combat weapons "should" be better.

When I compared Scythe to Shortspear, I meant Shortspear. Since:

I was being relevant. Had I made a reference to the Spear, I would be going on a tangent, as the normal Spear was not mentioned in your post there. Therefore, I was simply being relevant to your argument.

The Scythe is a two-handed weapon...
We're talking about one-handed options...

In any case, of course I never seize to surprise you. I'm not trying to seize your surprise.
Of course, I can assume that you mean "cease," in which case I have this to say:
Of course I never cease to amaze you. To you, I'm a bumbling idiot who doesn't have anything to say and goes on tangents. Now, I won't deny that I go on tangents. I do; then again, I don't have a good ability to sort through information and find only the important bits, thanks to Asperger's Syndrome, so congrats on making fun of someone with an Autism Spectrum Disorder! (I could add in a whole lot more about my having Asperger's Syndrome, but it'd be long, related to things you've said and done, and would be classified as a "tangent" by you, despite the fact that it actually addresses issues presented in this thread that, although not having to do with the Bashing enchantment, are still issues.

Well, I'm sorry I made a spelling mistake. I also apologize if I caused you angst because of your condition.
The problem isn't that you go off into tangents. The problem is that you try to tie them in with an issue they don't fit in. You misidentify the problem right from the start.

However, my "tangents" are, in fact, related to the arguments you present. I don't see why I can't bring up a weapon that has yet to be given face-time, or point out that the weapon you select does not prove your point, while you can do such. Actually, I often try to prevent you from going on tangents... Though, it's not like you ever pay attention to me or anything that I say, especially when I quote the Player's Handbook. You automatically write it off as wrong, stupid, and as a tangent. Congrats, you throw away my points because you don't want to actually confront what I say.

Not all are related. The weapons you mention are either two-handed or only make the problem less obvious, not remove it. And even if they did, that wouldn't mean that there are no other weapons that suck compared to the bashing shield when clearly and logically they shouldn't. And also there's the cost thing and AC. I tried not ignoring you at the start. It didn't go well, so I ignored you for a bit. Now I'm not ignoring you again, but it doesn't seem any better (for anyone).

You're right; it's not random, and you don't call people idiots. Instead, you imply that people are idiots (with little to no tact), and only to people that don't agree with your opinion.

Well, if me having an opinion and supporting it by facts and arguments means that I imply people are idiots then all discussion is off. It's like how the fanatical Muslims (my respects to the normal Muslims) responded to when their religion is made fun of in comparison to how they laugh at jokes about other religions. It's about freedom of thought.
I will say that I responded rather fiercely a few times when provoked, but that was wrong of me. As I said already. Can't say I heard it too, though...

The Neoclassic

2009-01-18, 12:02 PM

I hear that we are going back to original points? If this was already cleared up, forgive me, but I noticed this near the beginning and I didn't see a solid resolution.

...without feat expenditure, you lose your shield bonus to AC when wielding a weapon.

WRONG!
It's not balanced, you don't need a feat, you can just use a second shield on your other hand.

((Under the shields section under the Equipment file.))

If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round).

This is straight-up RAW and I don't see how that is ambigious. Under usual (feat-free) circumstances, you cannot use a shield as a weapon and get an AC bonus from it in the same round. I'm not going to comment on the balance here, but it seems reasonable to me.

Mushroom Ninja

2009-01-18, 12:15 PM

Can you guys please stop misrepresenting my view in such strawmen?
I did only put it in bold, twice.
(Shields also get AC bonus aside from damage in TWF, though not in S&B)

Please forgive me if my argument appeared to be a strawman. I should have written more clearly.

I was attempting to raise the topic of defining "over powered". I believe that coming up with a more exact definition of "over powered" will help focus the discussion.

Again, please forgive me if the lack of clarity in my writing portrayed me statement as trying to misrepresent you or your arguments.

Keld Denar

2009-01-18, 01:10 PM

2. overpowered
Adjective

1. Smtn. that obtained more power than needed
2. Smtn. possessing too much power

So, how, in the context of D&D, do we measure something to be possessing too much power? Well due to D&D's level by level nature, you'd have to compare similar levels with similar wealth. Since youre "OP" shield costs ~4000g, I'd say level 6 would be a good comparison level, given that WBL for 6 is 13,000, allowing you to spend about 1/4 of your WBL on your weapon (typical). You may spend more if you choose. Shall we keep this in core only? Or open it up to all WotC published products (no Dragon Mags)? I'm really curious to see how exactly you would build an overpowered character using an "OP" weapon like this, and see how it compares to something similar.

If your damage doesn't exceed any other builds possible average damage by 10% or more, then its clearly not OP. What do you think of this?

Simanos

2009-01-18, 01:59 PM

Please forgive me if my argument appeared to be a strawman. I should have written more clearly.

I was attempting to raise the topic of defining "over powered". I believe that coming up with a more exact definition of "over powered" will help focus the discussion.

Again, please forgive me if the lack of clarity in my writing portrayed me statement as trying to misrepresent you or your arguments.
No, I should apologize for misreading your post. It wasn't a strawman. You were actually also pinpointing the issue of the definition of OP.
It can mean different things. It can mean something that is by far the best thing in a game to a point of breaking it. Or it can mean that something is more powerful than it logically should be as is the case here.

...
I choose:
1. Smtn. that obtained more power than needed
with "needed' meaning/replaced with "it logically should have".
About the price thing:
The Shield+1 of Bashing char has 9,000 gp left.
The Merciful Shortspear+1 char has 5,000 gp left.
The both do the same damage with their primary.
Even if you use another weapon you'll only get an average of 9 instead of 8.
My point is that a shield gives many other stuff and as a weapon of opportunity it shouldn't really match or even come close to the truly offensive weapons. Certainly not for so much cheaper!

I have to admit though, that my solution of removing the +1/+1 from "of Bashing" doesn't really fix it since it only needs 2,000 gp to add it anyway. It's a start though. And my fix to size does work.
Perhaps after all, it is better to consider shield bashes as off-handed attacks always. That would fix a lot of the illogicalities and imbalances. I'm surprised the FAQ says otherwise tbh.
Or maybe make "of Bashing" cost +2. No, that wouldn't work at the high end.

...
you can just use a second shield on your other hand.
OK?
The point is to match the S&B or TWF styles. For the S&B no feat is needed (or wanted). For TWF Improved Shield Bash offers a bonus free AC. It's not needed, it's extra, but easy and welcomed. And nothing comparable for TWF warriors who don't go the "way of the shield" :smalltongue:
They don't "have" the choice even.

Keld Denar

2009-01-18, 02:26 PM

Fine, "More powerful than needed." What do you consider more powerful than needed? 3 more points of damage per hit? 4? 7? 12? 15? Seriously, even comparing a +1 bashing shield with a +1 short spear (which is stupid, because a short spear is one of the worst 1handed simple weapons), it costs 2000 more gold, and only achieves 3.5 extra damage per hit. Now, I don't know how much D&D experience you have, but 3.5 damage is not a whole lot. Comparing it with something more appropriate, a +1 heavy mace (also a simple 1handed weapon), reduces the gap down to 2.5 extra damage, which is even less, and you are still 2000g more. Thats what I've been trying to prove to you this whole time, but you adamantly stick behind it. Its NOT OP. It doesn't matter.

Why can't you comprehend that base weapon damage is such a small part of overall damage? Just answer this one question, and I'll be happy. That, or post your build. I'm curious to see what else you consider OP.

Seperate issue...
And as far as nerfing mainhand shield bashing to 1/2 str...its one of those things that you can make a big stink about, but in the end, it doesn't add or detract much from the game. Just one more rule to book keep. Just like the poster on here last month who was asking about creating rules for having a wet bow string, its just one of those things that may make sense, but to actually execute turns the game from D&D to A&A (Accountants and Actuaries).

EDIT:

They don't "have" the choice even.

Actually, they do...its called Improved Buckler Defense, and results in a scant 1 point less AC than duel wielding shields with Imp Shield Bash. 1 AC hardly matters, the same way that 1-3 points of damage don't matter, in the grand overall sceme of things.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-18, 02:57 PM

you can just use a second shield on your other hand.
OK?
The point is to match the S&B or TWF styles. For the S&B no feat is needed (or wanted). For TWF Improved Shield Bash offers a bonus free AC. It's not needed, it's extra, but easy and welcomed. And nothing comparable for TWF warriors who don't go the "way of the shield" :smalltongue:
They don't "have" the choice even.

I guess I don't entirely get what you mean here. Of course you can use a second shield... You use one for your weapon and one for your AC. But neither is doing both at the same time. So, it seems equivalent to holding a morningstar (weapon) and a shield (used as a shield). Hence, I don't see how the "You can use one shield as a weapon and hold another to serve your AC" demonstrates how the shield is unbalanced. In other words, yeah, you can use a shield for one of two purposes, but all I'm getting out of that is maybe it is too versitile.

Keld Denar

2009-01-18, 03:14 PM

Queenfange, what he keeps jumping back and forth between are 2 options.

1) Using 2 shields, holding 1 back and making attacks with the other. Same as S&B, or your morningstar example.

2) Using 2 shields, making attacks with both via TWF, and retaining your AC bonus with the offhand one with the feat Improved Shield Bash.

Neither of which are considered "optimal" methods of doing damage (S&B and TWF are generally WAY underpowered without a bunch of bonus damage).

Example 1 results in an average of 2.5 damage per hit more than using a heavy mace +1 and a shield, and costs 2000g less. Clearly, 2.5 damage per hit is not over powered.

Example 2 results in an average of 2.5 damage more per hit with a main hand compared to a long sword or heavy mace, and 1 more damage per hit with offhand comparing a +1 Bashing light shield with a +1 short sword or light mace. So, an average of 3.5 more damage per MH/OH attack pair for a cost of 4000g and a feat more. Clearly, not over powered.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm trying to help you realise that the advantage that a bashing shield has over a similar weapon is not as big as you think it is, and certainly not game breaking or overpowered in any respect. It goes back to my point, about 3 threads ago, that you seem to have trouble grasping. When you increase investment, you should see an increase in return. Your examples are doing slightly more damage, as I've shown in my 2 evaluations, and thus cost slightly more. You pay some cash, you get some bling. Thats how the game works. The damage you get is in line with similar equipment upgrades of similar cost. Its BALANCED not OVER POWERED.

Simanos

2009-01-25, 01:15 PM

Why do you keep comparing the cost of a +2 (equivalent) item to a +1?
You still fail to answer my comparison of a Merciful Shortspear+1 to a Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing +1.

Keld Denar

2009-01-25, 01:46 PM

No, you are comparing a +2 equiv Shield which functions as a +1 equiv weapon with a +2 equiv Weapon.

You are comparing 2 things which have different cost scalings, and will never be equal.

Fine, rephrasing my earlier example:

1) Using 2 shields, holding 1 back and making attacks with the other. Same as S&B, or your (Queenfange's) morningstar example.

Example 1 results in:
+1 Bashing Shield 2d6+1
+1 Merciful Short Spear 2d6+1

Same damage, though the spear costs 4000g more. Clearly not overpowered though, since the Bashing shield must be enchanted as a weapon in order to be further enhanced, while the spear already contains its basic bonuses. Also, the spear has the ability to inflict non-lethal damage if the wielder desires, which is essentially a +4 to hit when dealing subdual damage. That versitility also makes up some of the difference in cost.

Seriously dude, you keep comparing a simple weapon to the equivalent of a magical martial weapon, and wondering why the simple weapon comes up short. Thats because simple weapons DO come up short. They are simple, because they are inferior to marial weapons, which are inferior to exotic weapons. Thats the way it works. Martially oriented characters use martial weapons because they are mechanically BETTER than simple weapons. Less martially oriented characters use simple weapons because their training doesn't include access to martial weapons. If every character could use martial weapons, EVERYONE would use them, and there would be no reason to use a Heavy Mace when you can use a Long Sword and get the increased threat range. Thats the way the rules were made.

Seriously, though, the devs couldn't make everything perfectly even across the board. Some things DO come out a little ahead of others, while others lag behind a bit in power. But for the most part, the weapons in the PHB are balanced against each other. The difference between them is minor, and certainly not enough to rule one as more overpowered than the others. Especially not when you have to spend 4000g to get there!

EDIT:
For grins and giggles, lets look at NON-magical versions. A medium sized Heavy Spiked Shield does 1d6 damage, per Table 7-5: Weapons, pg 116. It also counts as a 1 handed Martial Weapons per PHB pg 125.

Now, from that citation, we see that a an unupgraded shield is the exact same weapon as a short spear. 1d6 P that crits for 2x only on a 20. Except that the shield is a MARTIAL weapon, which means only characters with MARTIAL weapon proficiency can wield one. Now we look at the other 1handed martial weapons out there. Long Sword - 1d8 S crits on 19-20 for x2. Rapier 1d6 P crits on 18-20 for x2. Which is better? The other martial weapons, certainly.

Now, looking at Bashing, DMG pg 218, it makes the shield count as 2 sizes larger, although the rules for Bashing doesn't seem to indicate that you can put Bashing on a Spiked Shield.

Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size catagories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. (Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.)

Spiked Shields have their own entry in Table 7-5: Weapons, pg 116, and Spiked Shield weapon discription on pg 121 in the PHB references the entry in the Armor section. It makes no notion that adding a spike to a shield increases its effective size by 1 catagory, mearly changes the damage from 1d6 B to 1d8 P. From the quoted text, I'd almost say you can't enhance a spiked shield with Bashing, since its not referenced.

EDIT2:
Also, in response to the whole enhancing a shield as armor/weapon.

<snip> An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

That proves that while Bashing gives a shield a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and damage, it still must be made into a magic weapon if you want to add other bonuses to it. You couldn't have a +1 Bashing Flaming shield for 9000g, you'd have to pay 4000g for +1 Bashing, and then another 8000 for +1 Flaming, for example.

Simanos

2009-01-25, 03:34 PM

Flaming SHIELD* of Bashing +1 (12,000 gp) 3d6+1
Merciful Flaming Shortspear+1 (18,000 gp) 3d6+1
OK? It gets worse at higher levels...

EDIT: BTW:
"It makes no notion that adding a spike to a shield increases its effective size by 1 catagory, mearly changes the damage from 1d6 B to 1d8 P."
(It's 1d4 B to 1d6 P actually, for medium size)

Shield Spikes

When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

AND

"...although the rules for Bashing doesn't seem to indicate that you can put Bashing on a Spiked Shield."
It's explained in the FAQ. It's allowed.

Keld Denar

2009-01-25, 05:02 PM

Bah, there it is, 3 entrys after Heavy Shield. As far as the FAQ, well, there are enough people here who think the Sage is an idiot who constantly contradicts himself. Whatever, my other points still stand, minor static increases in damage really don't matter in the long run.

And as far as the 2 weapons you are comparing, you've completely missed the point. It not that the shield isn't better....its just that the difference between them is marginal. Its NOT worth crying foul about. Its only 2-3 points, as I've shown in my math. In my last post I said "You are comparing 2 things which have different cost scalings, and will never be equal." Never be equal.

And you still haven't addressed the fact that bashing with a shield is martial weapon vs the simple weapon you are using in your example. Sure, a shield SHOULD be better than a spear, because one is a martial weapon and one is a simple weapon. There IS a distinction, and you haven't addressed that.

Regardless, the fact that its limited to a 1handed weapon makes it significantly less powerful relative to weapons other characters use. Even if you do an extra 2-3 points of damage, you aren't gonna compete in overall damage with any 2 hander. Its not over powered because of that.

Seriously, you need to sit down and figure out what you consider "balanced" and what you consider "over powered". When you do that, you'll see that a Bashing shield is not any where close to being over powered. Then we'll discuss this further. Sound reasonable?

Simanos

2009-01-26, 07:47 AM

Not really.
The cost is never equal, but the point is the damage is equal (or nearly equal for martial weapons like the Flail, same x2 crit) for half (or nearly half) the price. And on top of that the shield is a completely situational weapon that can be used in defense and should not rival the main weapons and should absolutely not rival them for much lower cost.
The fact that "of Bashing" gives too much has been already proven. All that remains now is how to properly nerf it.
Taking away the +1/+1 only adds +2,000 gp to the cost and only if you don't enchant it further.
Making it +1d6 instead of +2 sizes makes it less abusable, but perhaps it should be only +1d4 for Light Shields.
TBH I'm still not happy with that. I think the offhand penalty is needed, but I can't really justify it.
Have there been any historical warriors with shields as main weapon?

The Neoclassic

2009-01-26, 08:14 AM

This isn't really going anywhere, and I admit I kind of suck at following nitty-gritties, so I figured I'd fiddle around with this myself.

First off, from what Keld says, it looks like comparing a shield (a martial weapon) with a spear (a simple weapon) is a poor comparison, since simple weapons are categorically not as useful/effective as martial ones. It makes sense, given that martial ones seem to require more training (they are included in fewer class weapons lists).

Flaming SHIELD* of Bashing +1 (12,000 gp) 3d6+1
Merciful Flaming Shortspear+1 (18,000 gp) 3d6+1

As I mentioned above, I will instead be using a martial weapon as a fairer comparison with the shield. I'm also going to price this out and do the damage out on my own to see what I come up with. If I make any errors along the way, please point them out specifically rather than just dismissing my answer without explanation.

Shield Spikes: When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack (see above).
An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

OK, that's cool. So, the pricing for a spiked shield here ought to be the same as the pricing for a magic weapon, not a magical piece of armor.

This brings up a question for me: If we are putting an enhancement bonus on the shield as a weapon and not as armor, are we allowed to make it bashing? Bashing is an armor enchant, and I thought you couldn't give armor special properties unless you had an armor enhancement bonus on it.

Honestly, that brings my analysis to a halt. Can someone please cite the rule that explains if you are allowed to make something bashing (an armor special ability) while only having a weapon enhancement bonus on it?

Most magic armor and shields only have enhancement bonuses. Such items can also have one or more of the special abilities detailed below. Armor or a shield with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

As you can see, it isn't clear whether that needs to be a +1 armor enhancement bonus or if a weapon enhancement bonus will work too. I'm inclined towards the former.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

This suggests to me that enhancement bonuses for weapons and armor are treated quite differently, so unless you also gave the shield a +1 armor enhancement bonus on top of the +1 and flaming weapon enhancement bonuses, you couldn't make the shield bashing.

Sorry again to derail this a bit, but this is vital for me to really take a fair look at this, which I am much wanting to do. If no one answers, I suppose I'll just stat it out with both assumptions later. :smalltongue:

Simanos

2009-01-26, 10:10 AM

Honestly, that brings my analysis to a halt. Can someone please cite the rule that explains if you are allowed to make something bashing (an armor special ability) while only having a weapon enhancement bonus on it?
The rules aren't clear at all. "Of Bashing" is the only offensive armor magic property (other than Spined) and it's defined pretty poorly. Perhaps it would have been better if they made a weapon property (and cost) that could be added only to shields instead of an armor property. The +1/+1 of it still needs to go (it won't stack with the +1 base needed for enchantment with properties anyway). It would still need the other changes I proposed like no more size abuse.
My cost analysis proved it and even if you substitute the Shortspear for a Flail (a martial weapon) you get only 1 average damage less for nearly half the cost. And you get the other bonuses of a shield too in some cases. It's really ridiculous.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-26, 10:22 AM

The rules aren't clear at all.

My cost analysis proved it.

:smalltongue:

Anyway, I'm only on the forums briefly right now, but I will be doing this out when I get home. I may come out with the same cost analysis you do, but because of this whole two types of enhancement bonus thing, I may not.

Muad'dib

2009-01-26, 11:07 AM

A shield bash should be a last ditch option. For when you got disarmed, sundered or whatever. It should not be a better primary weapon than any other main weapon in usual circumstances. That is my opinion and why I think "of Bashing" is OP.

In the immortal words of someone much wiser than I:

"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
-The Dude-

Now, my shield bashers, they're all based off of the spartans in 300. Now I know filmwise it was a very bad film, but dang if those action scenes weren't sexy. And if you think their shield bashes were "a last ditch option" and not as primary in their attack routines as their spears then we're not talking about the same film. Basically, I believe your premise is flawed and I believe very much that a shield is a weapon that should be just as effective (if not more so in notable cases) as many other weapons.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-26, 11:20 AM

OK, perhaps redundant, but here is my analysis of the matter. I do tend to favor the hard number comparison approach, so that’s what I’ll be doing.

First off, I’m going to use a short sword for comparison. Like a spiked shield, it is a light martial melee weapon. All of this will be making the assumption that the shield user does not have the feat that allows them to use a shield for both AC and attack in the same round. So, base stats:

Short sword: 9 gp, 1d6 (19-20/x2) + Str bonus damage
Spiked shield: 59 gp, 1d4 (20/x2) + ½ Str bonus damage

You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.

Nothing in shield spikes specifies that this changes it from being still treated as an off-hand weapon, so we are going to be stuck with the ½ Str bonus damage (instead of full). So, as a nonmagical weapon, a spiked hield isn’t very good.

Now, to add some magic.

Short sword with +1 weapon enhancement and flaming: 1d6 + 1d6 fire + 1+ Str bonus damage (19-20/x2)
This costs 8,309 gp. Straight-forward and all that. Now for the shield.

Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. (Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.)
Price +1 bonus.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

OK, so it looks like I can enchant the spikes as a weapon OR the shield as a whole. Bashing will not stack with spikes, so I’ll try both options separately.

Light steel shield with +1 armor enhancement and bashing: 1d6 + ½ Str bonus damage (20/x2)
This costs 4,159 gp. Like the sword, this has a +1 enhancement bonus to attacks.

This looks fairly even so far.

Let’s try the other way, going for enchanting a spiked shield instead.

Light spiked steel shield with +1 weapon enhancement and flaming: 1d4 + 1 +1d6 fire + ½ Str bonus damage (19-20/x2).
This costs 8,359 gp. Not a bad option, if you have the feat (which we’re assuming you don’t, though, for general balance worries), but nothing great.

This seems very far from:

Flaming SHIELD* of Bashing +1 (12,000 gp) 3d6+1
Merciful Flaming Shortspear+1 (18,000 gp) 3d6+1

Hmmm. Well, let’s look at why I am getting a different conclusion.

I am assuming you are referring to a shield with +1 weapon enhancement and flaming plus +1 armor enhancement and bashing. This would be 8,000 (+2 weapon enchant) plus 4,000 (+2 armor enchant). So far, we are on the same page.

Now to damage:

Base damage from a shield: 1d3 + Bashing (up two categories) = 1d6
Flaming = 1d6 fire
Weapon enchant = 1

I’m getting 2d6 +1…. Where did you get that extra 1d6 from?

EDIT:

"...although the rules for Bashing doesn't seem to indicate that you can put Bashing on a Spiked Shield."
It's explained in the FAQ. It's allowed.

I'm going by RAW here regarding Bashing for Spiked (and RAW seems fairly clear it's not OK), though I don't know what the official policy or whatever on the FAQ is. Regardless, if bashing is /that/ overpowered, one shouldn't need to add spikes to prove it. :smallbiggrin:

Keld Denar

2009-01-26, 12:02 PM

My cost analysis proved it and even if you substitute the Shortspear for a Flail (a martial weapon) you get only 1 average damage less for nearly half the cost.

So, is this what you define as over powered? 1 average damage for doubling the cost (~4000g)? That, and the little ability to use the weapon for armor purposes provided you either don't attack with it, or take a feat.

First of all, lets look at the 1 average damage. Gauntlets of Ogre Power +2 give a +2 enhancement bonus to strength. They cost 4000g. +2 str gives a +1 to hit AND +1 to damage, or +1.5 damage if you use a weapon 2handed. So...does that mean the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are also OP? I'm serious here, because you seem to think that a weapon that results in the same increase in damage AND result in a +1 to hit and on all str based checks. I don't think its OVER powered, I think its balanced, compared to something else you could spend the cash on. Most people that have posted in this thread agree with this.

Second...AC. Having the option to use a shield for AC when you want it is irrelevant because of Animated Shields. Past about level 8ish and barring a few specific builds, if you have a shield at all, it should be animated, and you should be wielding a 2hander. Shield AC just doesn't scale enough to be worth the loss of damage. Anything less, and you are behind the power curve...period. Whether your 1hander does slightly more damage than a similar 1hander is irrelevant, since you aren't doing as much as a 2hander. Most people who have posted in this thread agree with this

And my final point. If you really feel like you must nerf something that likely very few players will even bring up, much less use, then you are probably investing more time and resources into this than are probably required. You could spend a YEAR coming up with minor circumstantial changes to nearly all of the rules to D&D, and it wouldn't change game play 90% of the time. So you nerf the hell out of Bashing shields, which aren't even OP to begin with, but none of your players ever decide to use a Bashing shield in any configuration. You've just fretted about a rule that exists only in your head, and you really haven't contributed anything to your game. Its like the example I posted earlier, about the poster who wanted to make up rules for using a wet bow string. Its just something that doesn't contribute much to the game, other than being one more thing to have to keep track of. Heck, most DMs don't enforce rations in game, or things like bathing or using the little warlocks room. Thats because they don't impact the game enough to warrent making house rules for. You want to see good house rules? Look into monk fixes, or banning multiclass penalties (which hurt melee more than casters), or any of the other things that actually contribute to the enjoyment of the game, rather than squabbling over 1 point of damage. Make sense?

Oh, and Queenfange, a shield is funny because it can be enchanted as both armor AND a weapon. So, you could have something like this:
+1 Weapon Shield and +1 Armor Shield = (2000g + 1000g +base)
+1 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Armor Shield = (2000g + 4000g +base)
+2 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Armor Shield = (8000g + 4000g +base)
+5 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Heavy Fort Shield = (50000g + 49000g + base)

etc. You add the base cost of enchanting it as a weapon with the base cost of enchanting it as a shield. Without the Imroved Shield Bash feat, though, it can only act as one or the other at any given time. Instead of that, you COULD wield 1 shield as a weapon, and one as a shield. Something like:

+1 Weapon Shield with +1 Bashing (2000g + 4000g +base)
+1 Shield (1000g + base)

or whatever...1 shield used for attacks, the other used for AC. You are still paying a lot of gold for just a little extra damage and still getting out damaged by everyone else.

The Neoclassic

2009-01-26, 01:07 PM

Oh, and Queenfange, a shield is funny because it can be enchanted as both armor AND a weapon. So, you could have something like this:
+1 Weapon Shield and +1 Armor Shield = (2000g + 1000g +base)
+1 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Armor Shield = (2000g + 4000g +base)
+2 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Armor Shield = (8000g + 4000g +base)
+5 Weapon Shield and +1 Bashing Heavy Fort Shield = (50000g + 49000g + base)

etc. You add the base cost of enchanting it as a weapon with the base cost of enchanting it as a shield. Without the Imroved Shield Bash feat, though, it can only act as one or the other at any given time. Instead of that, you COULD wield 1 shield as a weapon, and one as a shield. Something like:

+1 Weapon Shield with +1 Bashing (2000g + 4000g +base)
+1 Shield (1000g + base)

or whatever...1 shield used for attacks, the other used for AC. You are still paying a lot of gold for just a little extra damage and still getting out damaged by everyone else.

OK, cool. Makes sense. Honestly, enchanting as both only looks to pose a serious problem to me if one allows Bashing and shield spikes to stack.

Simanos

2009-01-28, 01:34 PM

First of all, lets look at the 1 average damage. Gauntlets of Ogre Power +2 give a +2 enhancement bonus to strength. They cost 4000g. +2 str gives a +1 to hit AND +1 to damage, or +1.5 damage if you use a weapon 2handed. So...does that mean the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are also OP? I'm serious here, because you seem to think that a weapon that results in the same increase in damage AND result in a +1 to hit and on all str based checks. I don't think its OVER powered, I think its balanced, compared to something else you could spend the cash on. Most people that have posted in this thread agree with this.
Thank you for proving my point. You can get a SHIELD*+1 and Gauntlets of Ogre Power for the same cost as one Weapon+2 and have better stats all around.
Also try and do the math for higher up enchantments. 36,000 instead of 50,000 leaves a lot of gold to get "free" stuff.

This is the opposite of the wet bowstring example. This is a case of when the rules that exist create something relatively unbalanced. The wet bowstring thing is a case where there are no rules to judge it at all currently. It's up to DM.

Queenfange, it's pretty arbitrary not to allow spikes.
What I asked for is reasonable rule changes that would balance "Of Bashing" as is.

Mua'Dib, even in the movie they used shields offhanded for the most part. Your example lacks any persuasive powers at all anyway. And I will add:
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man."
-The Dude-

It applies to you as much (more probably) as to me. It doesn't add anything to the topic. I provided evidence to back my opinion. You didn't (you "believe"). You only provided your opinion and offered offense to me.

Are there any real historic evidences of shields used as a main weapon by design?

The Neoclassic

2009-01-28, 02:50 PM

Queenfange, it's pretty arbitrary not to allow spikes.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

This seems fairly clear regarding armor properties aiding the spiked quality of a shield (not precisely RAW, but one step from it), so I don't see how that's arbitrary.

Either way, I still did not get an answer to this, which I need before I can tell you how to balance out Of Bashing. Note that in this I am allowing your interpretation of the rule allowing a spiked shield to stack with bashing.

Flaming SHIELD* of Bashing +1 (12,000 gp) 3d6+1

I am assuming you are referring to a shield with +1 weapon enhancement and flaming plus +1 armor enhancement and bashing. This would be 8,000 (+2 weapon enchant) plus 4,000 (+2 armor enchant). So far, we are on the same page.

Now to damage:

Base damage from a shield: 1d3 + Bashing (up two categories) = 1d6
Flaming = 1d6 fire
Weapon enchant = 1

I’m getting 2d6 +1…. Where did you get that extra 1d6 from?

It's likely I missed something, but until I fully understand your math, we can't be on the same page about this.

Signmaker

2009-01-28, 05:30 PM

It's likely I missed something, but until I fully understand your math, we can't be on the same page about this.

You calculated a light shield. Either he's calculating from a Heavy Spiked Shield(1d6->1d8->2d6), or a Large Heavy Shield.

Either way, it's only base damage, and comparing different prices but the same base damage isn't the best method to test overpoweredness. Especially since, as mentioned before, different weapon styles require different sources of damage infusing. If you're a gigantic monk with maxed-out base damage, flurrying like crazy? Sure, base damage is the way to go. A lancer? Not so much. A shield basher? Personally, I've found that their silliness is derived from their weapon-style feats (Charge n trip/stun), and occasionally judicious use of Knockback with Dungeoncrasher.

Comparing shields to the spear tree, all of which are simple weapons (and thus not meant to be used unless you're not martially-inclined to begin with), is just not fair. Then again, comparing most martial weapons to most simple weapons are. Straight out of the PHB's weapon table, most of them won't hold up. Feature in different weapon options sprung though class/feat/race choice, we might have a different story.

Simanos

2009-01-30, 08:11 AM

This seems fairly clear regarding armor properties aiding the spiked quality of a shield (not precisely RAW, but one step from it), so I don't see how that's arbitrary.
Your quote of SRD simply says that the normal armor enhancement bonuses on spiked shields don't give attack bonuses as well as AC bonuses (you have to add weapon enhancement bonuses for that). That is all it says. It says the same thing in other places about non-spiked shields too.

The math is pretty simple:
Heavy Shield 1d4
Spiked Heavy Shield 1d6
Heavy Shield of Bashing 1d8
Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing 2d6

I've proved that it is unbalanced for what it is. Now all I need from this thread is suggestions on how to balance it properly.
That is all that remains. (Stick to core for the most part)

Keld Denar

2009-01-30, 12:17 PM

I've proved that it is unbalanced for what it is. Now all I need from this thread is suggestions on how to balance it properly.
That is all that remains. (Stick to core for the most part)

Unless I've missed something, the only person who has posted in this thread who thinks a spiked shield of bashing is over powered is you. Everyone else thinks that it is a pretty balanced minor addition of minor damage for a minor cost. You invest money into your shield, you get extra damage when you hit stuff. The additional damage is balanced against other things that increase damage, and even if it were ahead of the power curve, its hardly far enough to be considered overpowered. Now, no one here can stop you from houseruling things the way you want, but we have been trying to help you see that its not over powered. Its right in line with where it should be, given the money invested. Heck, I'd even say its underpowered given the lack of the ability to use any of the established weapon styles that produce higher damage due to other feats and abilities. The only build I can even remotely think of that would be competative through mid-high levels would be some kind of TWF cleric who uses Knowledge Devotion, Law Devotion, Holy Warrior, and the Ordained Champion PrC, but even that wouldn't be great since no diety has Shield Bash as a favored weapon (for War Domain).

The Neoclassic

2009-01-30, 12:31 PM

Your quote of SRD simply says that the normal armor enhancement bonuses on spiked shields don't give attack bonuses as well as AC bonuses (you have to add weapon enhancement bonuses for that). That is all it says. It says the same thing in other places about non-spiked shields too.

Open to interpretation then I suppose. Though, really, if you think the Spiked Shield of Bashing is OP, you'd just interpret it / minorly house-rule it the same way I'd view it (not allowing spikes and bashing to. :smalltongue:

The math is pretty simple:

The nice poster before you already pointed out where I went astray, but thanks. :smallsmile:

I've proved that it is unbalanced for what it is. Now all I need from this thread is suggestions on how to balance it properly.
That is all that remains. (Stick to core for the most part)

As much as I think the word "prove" is hardly appropriate here, I'm not going to keep crunching through it nor argue the definition of overpowered. So, just make spiked and bashing not able to be stacked, or just say that bashing shields don't exist in your campaign world. I never allow my PCs to kitchensink (get whatever spell or weapon they want from any old village store) anyway. Seems like a very simple fix.

Random NPC

2009-01-30, 01:42 PM

I've proved that it is unbalanced for what it is. Now all I need from this thread is suggestions on how to balance it properly.
That is all that remains. (Stick to core for the most part)

You haven't proved it to nobody but to yourself. And again, base weapon damage means nothing.

The difference between 1d8(Longsword) and 2d6(Spike Shield of DOOM) is 2.5 points of damage. You are doing on average just 2.5 damage more than normally. And that's when you go Double shield to "improve" damage.

Fighters could be swinging the halfling bard and still be as effective as any other fighter because all of their beef they get is from the bonuses the whole party is giving them. Wizard's celerity, Bard's songs, Cleric's spells, all of that makes the great chunk of the damage.

And even then, trying to do pure damage as a fighter is not good. A Spiked shield might do a whooping 7 damage in average, but a flail can prove more effective overall and not just in doing damage.

The reason why it's not overpowered, is mainly because you are paying 4,000 gp for 1d6 of damage. Now where have I seen this?

Oh, right, Magic Item Compendium. Outside of core, but not banned by many(Not cheesy). I can even argue on how "outside of core" is BS and that since WotC made it, it should be OK with DM approval.

Anyways, with a Augment Crystal you can pay 3,000 gp for an extra 1d6 energy damage. You attach the crystal to a +1 or higher weapon and it will give it a 1d6 of extra damage.

Let's compare a Longsword with the shield.

+1 Longsword with Crystal of Energy assault
1d8+1d6 (8 average) damage for.... 5,000 gp

Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing (behaving like a +1 weapon.)
2d6 (7 average) damage for.... 4,000 gp!

Cheaper, but weaker than my Longsword. Now let's give them flaming.

+1 Flaming Longsword with Crystal of Energy assault
1d8+1d6+1d6 (11.5 average) damage for..... 11,000 gp

+1 Flaming Heavy Spiked Shield of Bashing
2d6+1d6 (10.5 average) damage for... 12,000 gp

Now your shield is doing less damage and costing more.

Simanos

2009-02-01, 03:47 PM

afroakuma

2009-02-01, 04:09 PM

Random NPC and Keld Denar, I don't really care that you do not get it yet.
I've showed how the math works.

So have they, and several others. There has been a consistent attempt to demonstrate this to you, which you have been choosing to ignore and/or belittle.

If you have anything constructive to add to this thread please do. Otherwise I'm not interested in fallacious mathematical models of what I described in a simple and accurate way.

Again, their models are not fallacious. I've examined everything presented here at length, and they are demonstrably correct.

You can keep posting all you like of course, if you want to post for your own ego

I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but if you took a less confrontational and insulting tone, you might find this thread more productive.

If you on the other hand want to post to help the poster (me) with how to nerf "of Bashing" in a reasonable way then feel free.

They cannot do so, as they do not believe it needs nerfing. Nothing shown yet on this thread supports that need.

I can relate to your other position of making "of bashing" unavailable in the campaign world. I will consider this. Not stacking doesn't sound good to me though. My other solution is to make of Bashing give 1 size bonus instead of 2. That (and removing the +1/+1) fixes pretty much everything I have problems with.

There. You have solved your own problems by talking over your own solutions with yourself. You had first evinced an interest in increasing the cost modifier to +2, which would be another option available to you. Are you now simply looking for people to concur with you? If so, I would ask that you leave that aside, as it's been made more than clear that we do not and will not.

You have ignored any attempt to clarify the design parameters, and in doing so rendered this thread down to one thing: You have posited that an adjustment needs to be made, you have identified what adjustments you find reasonable and you have selected one. As far as I can see, your goal has been accomplished.

Innis Cabal

2009-02-01, 04:20 PM

The math is pretty simple:
Heavy Shield 1d4
Spiked Heavy Shield 1d6
Heavy Shield of Bashing 1d8
Spiked Heavy Shield of Bashing 2d6

Great Sword 2d6: Its core, Power Attack as a feat does more damage then your build. And its cheaper

Great Axe: 1d12 (see above)

afroakuma

2009-02-01, 04:31 PM

Innis, there's no point. He doesn't want your math. He doesn't want your explanations. He wants your agreement, which he won't get.

The debate is essentially over. There's no sense continuing it.

Random NPC

2009-02-01, 05:09 PM

Random NPC and Keld Denar, I don't really care that you do not get it yet.
I've showed how the math works. Please stop mentioning stuff that isn't Core. I do not care of most of that either. (You can add Augment Crystal to the shield too you know, and they are not core, good indication of being imba). It's like card games. The companies keep producing more and more powerful stuff to make you keep buying or lose to newer players. I chose not to play that game.

If you have anything constructive to add to this thread please do. Otherwise I'm not interested in fallacious mathematical models of what I described in a simple and accurate way. You can keep posting all you like of course, if you want to post for your own ego or for the "lurkers' sake". I'm just not buying it. If you on the other hand want to post to help the poster (me) with how to nerf "of Bashing" in a reasonable way then feel free.

1. The companies produce stuff, not "imba" stuff. They can produce good quality, overpowered idiocy and weak, unplayable crap.

2. Our math is not fallacious. Just a simple fact. You can't depend on base weapon damage. That is the main reason why Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting using bastardswords is not optimal at all, and why if you want to use two-weapon fighting effectively you better be a Rogue.

Base weapon damage means nothing. Try to use some dice and different examples on complete builds, not just the weapon itself. Test it with a fighter build for the task, or a ranger, or a rogue. Then change the build, the level, the WBL. Change every parameter and test it yourself. TEST, not assume.

Testing the weapon alone is like testing a certain aspect of a problem while ignoring the environment. You want to isolate a factor when you are ignoring heavy numbers that weight down and change your calculations. You can't don this, since a weapon is like an "open system" (if seen from a thermodynamic perspective).

That's true math, or science. You check not only your component, but you measure it against other components on different situations.

3. I don't agree with you, and I'm stating why. I can't just help you nerf something that I do not perceive as Overpowered.

4. I'm adding constructive criticism. I'm not telling you "YUR WRONG, LERN2MINMAX". I'm telling you that yes, you are doing it wrong, but I'm telling you where, how and why.

Where? On the damage. How? By thinking that damage you do depends heavily on the base damage. Why? Because it has been tested over and over on character optimization boards. You should go there. People with Math degrees and free time post their theories and their problems.

If you want I can go back on some aspects.

Your main gripe is that you say the shield does too much damage for a weapon you are using as a last resort.

My answer is that if you are wielding a shield of bashing, a martial weapon and you have NO FEATS to fight with the shield, is balanced and you WILL NEVER do more damage with the shield, unless you have no feats to improve how you fight with YOUR MAIN WEAPON.

Also, since you won't spend a feat on improve shield bashing, you won't receive its AC bonus.

If you are spending a feat to fight with that shield, you are not using the shield as a last resort. It's like investing on Two-Weapon fighting and not fighting with your off hand until you are cornered.

If you are using the shield as a main weapon and you are investing feats to fight with it and you are ALSO using another shield to keep your AC, you won't do much more damage than with another weapon. An average of 2.5 more, but then again, you won't crit as much (as with a Longsword or a Scimitar) and those crits may bring you up to par in average damage, or you won't be good at battle control (as with a Flail).

Now, think also that there is no much difference between 17.5 and 20, and you can easily ignore such difference.

Of course, you will dismiss me because I'm wrong and I cannot be reasoned with...