What do Sword and Boarders need to compete?

[JKTrickster]

This came from the What Do Archers need to compete? thread that was started a few days ago. Since I'm more of a melee person myself, I was always wondering why Sword and Board was always so left out. I'm not sure "shield bashing" really fits the archetype of S&B. Or if you do think so, just explain why and how it's a perfectly viable tactic. But if you don't,

What does it need to compete better?

[Urpriest]

Either:

A: Melee characters need to be more unsafe without a shield than with one to a great enough extent that the extra damage from two-handing isn't always worth it.

B: The character in question needs to be similarly more unsafe. This is different from the previous, general solution because it can include things like attracting more enemy attention than a melee character typically will via tanking mechanics.

[Gnaeus]

This came from the What Do Archers need to compete? thread that was started a few days ago. Since I'm more of a melee person myself, I was always wondering why Sword and Board was always so left out. I'm not sure "shield bashing" really fits the archetype of S&B. Or if you do think so, just explain why and how it's a perfectly viable tactic. But if you don't,

What does it need to compete better?

A reliable mechanic to make enemies attack you.

Intelligent enemies kill casters first. Most muggles solve this in one of two ways.
1. Chargers: Kill one enemy per round before they can hit the mage. Let them see that you will dismember them if they don't treat you as a threat.
2. Battlefield control. Trip (or bull rush or grapple sometimes) them far away from your parties soft chewy wizard center.

Goad was a small step in the right direction. Knight's challenge was another. Neither one is as effective as they should be. The shield only helps you if you can make the enemy swing at you.

[Hawk7915]

In addition to some above commentary...

- As it stands the returns for 2H are just too overwhelming great; they get 1.5 Strength to damage, have less gear to carry/enchant, get a 2-for-1 trade with Power Attack, and get better weapon damage dice. Either 2H combat needs less power, or Shield Specialization needs more of it. Shield Bash is 1.5 Str? Shield + Sword is 1.5 str? Take the Pathfinder Power Attack (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final) approach?

- Either stronger shields, or shield bonuses that scale with level (+1 shield bonus when using a shield for every 2/3/4 BAB?). A Heavy Shield is almost worth something at level 1, but by as early as level 3 the AC is meaningless when compared to the potential bonus damage from a 2H, and doubly meaningless considering how quickly attack scales upwards.

- It's not as miserable as it is for every other non-2H fighting style, way too much of being a "good" shield fighter is tied up in feats. You need Improved Shield Bash. You want Agile Shield Fighter, but to take it you have to take the god awful Shield Specialization. You can make being a Sword-and-Boarder more worthwhile with Shield Ward, which also requires stupid Specialization. To get the solid Shield Slam, you need Shield Charge. Good luck fitting any other feats into your build unless you are a fighter!

- More/easier ways to "tank": either snagging enemy attention, prohibiting enemies from moving past you, or more abilities to use your shield and/or body to "block" for a spellcaster. Certain classes (Knight, Crusader), have some of this already but making the "block" part innate to a Sword and Boarder would help a lot.

[Waker]

As stated the biggest weaknesses are that enemies don't have any reason to focus on you (barring some reason where they must focus on the nearest target), using a shield detracts from your ability to do higher damage while at the same time providing you with little boost in your defense. At higher level, AC becomes less important as the monsters you fight will have huge bonuses to hit you, meaning that piddly 1 or 2 ac shield (maximum ac bonus 7 with a +5) doesn't keep up.
One of the more annoying things is that many of the feats available seem to be focused on making a shield into another weapon as opposed to, y'know, a shield.
What shield users need: the ability to ramp up their ac much higher than it currently can be raised to, add in factors like miss chance or the ability to block attacks altogether, DR or something similar. A reason for the enemy to hit you as opposed to the mage. A way to prevent enemy movement, something like Stand Still (obviously a different ability though, since a shield user likely wouldn't have reach).

[MeeposFire]

You could make a 4e style fighter with some feats for shield users

Combat Challenge- All enemies adjacent to you take a -2 penalty to attack rolls if they make an attack that does not include you. This penalty increases by 1 every 4 levels. If they make an attack that does not include you the target provokes an attack of opportunity. This feat requires you to wield a shield in your hand.

Combat Superiority-If you hit an enemy with an attack of opportunity you stop their movement (if movement provoked their attack). You gain a bonus to AoO equal to your wisdom modifier. This feat requires you to wield a shield in your hand.

Shield push-If you hit with an attack you made from combat challenge you can choose to initiate a bull rush. Since this takes place before the attack finishes if you knock the enemy far enough away that the enemy's target is out of its reach you effectively nullify its attack. This feat requires you to wield a shield a shield in your hand.

Come and get it-Make an intimidate check against the sense motive skill of all enemies within 15 feat. If your check beats theirs enemies immediately must make an attack on the fighter. This may entail moving adjacent to the fighter.

These are just rough ideas. These feats will make you a more attractive target for the enemy and give you a boost if they ignore you.

Feats are needed since the biggest advantage to two handed weapons are the feat support (power attack stuff).

[Dreadn4ught]

Possibly you could make shields have a much larger defense bonus or actually have a penalty to defense if you don't use a shield.

It is pretty difficult to defend yourself properly without a shield.

Of course, as people have said, the main thing is to get your enemies to attack you and not the squishy caster. For this, I have no advice.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Come and get it-Make an intimidate check against the sense motive skill of all enemies within 15 feat. If your check beats theirs enemies immediately must make an attack on the fighter. This may entail moving adjacent to the fighter.... and in 3e this could almost make sense by throwing the [Mind-Affecting] tag on it! Really, one of my least favorite things about 4e (which I like to play in general) is that power. Also, it seems like the Knight already did what you want.

OP: Make a sword and board Warblade focusing on maneuvers that deal ++ bonus damage dice and the Diamond Mind maneuvers that deal damage proportional to your Concentration check. At later levels the shield gives you neat magical armor properties, and your build doesn't care as much about the extra damage from THF.

[Jothki]

Fixing Power Attack would probably help.

[Tvtyrant]

Its actually an easy step; make 1/2con bonus=DR normally and con bonus=DR with the shield. Makes melee characters tougher and gives a better mechanic then AC.

[Cespenar]

Shields should also give a bonus to Touch AC and Reflex saves without the need of a feat.

[Vangor]

Grant an additional armor class to light and heavy shields. All shields provide concealment except when used to attack. Use opposed attack rolls to block melee attacks. Reflex saves against burst spells. The square adjacent to a held heavy or tower shield is considered occupied, impeding enemy movement through and providing cover behind.

At the least this gives shields far more defensive options and tactical usage. While PCs may still not be inclined to use the shield, those changes turn the shield-carrying grunt from a non-issue to an aggravating obstacle.

[stainboy]

The easiest solution is to accept that a shield user in 3.5 will be a shieldbasher. Make a feat that gives TWF for shields only, doesn't require 15 Dex, and if you have Weapon Focus or Weapon Spec for your mainhand it applies to your shield too. There may be something like this already, I don't know. DW Shieldbash still wouldn't be optimal, but you at least make it easier for someone to take other shieldbash feats and make something cool out of it.

Making the actual AC bonus from shields matter sounds like way too much work. You'd have to mess with numbers at the core of the combat system. Two-hand bonuses, Power Attack, touch attacks, AC (not) scaling with level, and multiple typed AC bonuses that would get out of control if you did made AC scale with level. Not worth it unless you have a lot of free time and players willing to be guinea pigs.

[mint]

Some fraction of BAB to AC. Might take an hour or so to find a sweet spot.
TWF with shield without crazy dex but less effectively than actualy TWF.

[WinWin]

Scaling DR vs melee and ranged attacks? Anything that encourages sunder as a viable tactic is a good idea. That's the DM in me speaking though.

Major problem is that the D&D mechanics encourage taking the monster down faster over defending against it's attacks. Feel free to debate this point, but a dead monster stops hurting characters. The way damage and effects are dealt, particularly in higher levels, makes turtling and chipping away a fools tactic. Finding a method to make turtling a viable tactic might be a reasonable goal for D&D...but you risk ending up with a horrible parody of FF and other JRPGs.

[JaronK]

There needs to be a reason to hit the guy with the shield, otherwise smart opponents just hit the people he's "tanking" for. As such, shields should protect allies (in addition to the bearer) and have offensive effects... I'd follow the pattern of Shield Charge and Shield Slam, and have shield attacks debuff enemies.

JaronK

[Runestar]

Has anyone tried the bloodspiked charger feat in PHB2? It seems quite good on paper, but I have no idea how it actually plays out.

But yeah, that is a lot of feats just to make a shield user work. Streamlining or combining some of them would be a good place to start, IMO. Shield spec is a feat tax, nothing more. Remove the weapon focus prereqs from bloodspiked charger. What else?

[Dead_Jester]

Honestly, the most important thing is getting rid of the animated property, and then improving the actual effects of shields. More Ac is decent, but a flat chance to not take damage is much better. Something like a 20 % chance of not taking damage from physical attacks, maybe more for heavy shields, and than feats that enable you to also ignore spells (and then further feats to reflect them, or absorb them, or whatever). And maybe some feats that give cover to people behind you, up to Total cover if they are right behing you (thus making them impossible to target directly, and forcing mobs to attack you or maneuver around you to get to them)

Keeping shieldbashing is definately a must, although it needs to have suitable advantages and penalties when compared to normal twf.

[MarkusWolfe]

Fixing Power Attack would probably help.

I can assure that power attack is fine as it is. It's the shield mechanics that can't keep up.


Its actually an easy step; make 1/2con bonus=DR normally and con bonus=DR with the shield. Makes melee characters tougher and gives a better mechanic then AC.

This would stack with Barbarian DR, right? Would there be any way to overcome this DR? Does it go up as levels increase?

And another thing.....you have to have prerequisite for it, or all the monsters in the world gain DR. Perhaps one must have a minimum number of levels in a class with BAB and d10 or d12 hitdie before getting any DR? Perhaps Con bonus*1/2 level = DR, and you can only use half of it without a shield. (I know it sounds broken at first, but think about it for a second. All of the classes that would benefit from this are either in tier 4 or 5, or prestige classes often taken by tier 4 and 5. Well, except for Crusader and Warblade, but that's ToB for you)


Some fraction of BAB to AC. Might take an hour or so to find a sweet spot.

You know, I always wondered why this was never part of core to begin with. Half one's BAB to AC? It would make many builds a lot less haphazard. My level 14 barbarian only has an AC of 20....18 when raging. And we have access to magic mart. Admittedly, this is because I poured money into my weapon, STR booster and CON booster (to get an enhancement upgrade, I pay the difference instead of buying a new one), but I have 3 more enhancements to give my greataxe. It's +5 (+4 dragon bane) right now and I'm shooting for +8 (+5 berserking dragonbane of dragondoom) by somewhere in level 16. And DR is only going to carry me so far...

[JKTrickster]

So on one hand, shields don't provide enough defense (either through a good AC bonus or through miss chance/concealment) to be worth it. So should we change the mechanics of the shield themselves, or should this be available through class features/feats? After all, not everyone can use a shield in the correct manner.

About the need to draw the monster's attention, I saw the Tome Knight had a really interesting mechanic. Every turn, the Knight could "mark" an opponent as a full round action. During their next turn, the Knight could attack the marked opponent and deal a ridiculous amount of extra damage. However, if the marked opponent had managed to attack the Knight before this, the mark instantly goes off. Would this work for S&B?

Also what is the pitfalls of Goad and Knight's Challenge? Is it bad design implementation or flawed basis? How can we improve upon them?

A lot of you guys also make it seem that S&B is a primarily defensive tactic that makes no sense in the D&D combat system (which favors overwhelming Defense). Therefore Shield Bashing is much more popular. Is it possible to be both a Defense Shield Basher, or is Shield Bashing the only way to use S&B in DnD?

[Fouredged Sword]

I have wanted to homebrew four fighter varients for sword and board, two hander, einhander, and two weapon fighter. I feel like heavy armor is handed out too easily.

Shield fighters should get combat reflexes based off strength at low levels, heavy armor proficency, shield bash fighting without looseing AC, and the ability to hit, trip, and bullrush a foe without moveing with a shield as a single action (useable as a AOO). Granting cover to those around you, and posibly AC and save bonuses. Provideing them the ability to make AOO's for moving into one of thier threatened squares preventing tumbling and ways for force foes to strike you comeing later. Something like a souped up knight, but allowing any alignment.

Two hander would looke like a powerattacker in medium armor, but with the ability to do less swings per round to do more damage and accuracy per swing. The ability to pick your power attack modifier per swing, and the ability to extend reach are all looking good.

Einhanders I would build like lightly armored swashbucklers, but I would grant the ability to move and attack all at once. Grant them the ability to make a full attack as a standard action at 5th level, and the ability to make a swift action attack at full bab at 10th. Give them spring attack for free as some point and all the dodge feats through the +4 splitable bonus. I would also give them a 1/2 progression of extra damage damage, ether as a scout or as extra damage on targets of thier dodge feat. Posible both at later levels, encourageing them to jump around a select few targets, darting in and strikeing.

Two weapon fighter would be about lots of attacks in medium armor. I would grant them all the two weapon fighting feats at the fitst avalable level. I would also remove the -2 penelty for twfing at 10th level and grant a flurry of blows like ability for extra attacks at 15th. Throw oversized twfing at 5th level for fun or a ewp of you choice for a nice shinny double weapon.

Let characters then pick and choose thier fighter by mixing the four classes. Grant major abilities as 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th. This makes it profitable to take 5 levels of one particular fighter in a build with 15 levels of another. Varried HD and class features

[MeeposFire]

So on one hand, shields don't provide enough defense (either through a good AC bonus or through miss chance/concealment) to be worth it. So should we change the mechanics of the shield themselves, or should this be available through class features/feats? After all, not everyone can use a shield in the correct manner.

About the need to draw the monster's attention, I saw the Tome Knight had a really interesting mechanic. Every turn, the Knight could "mark" an opponent as a full round action. During their next turn, the Knight could attack the marked opponent and deal a ridiculous amount of extra damage. However, if the marked opponent had managed to attack the Knight before this, the mark instantly goes off. Would this work for S&B?

Also what is the pitfalls of Goad and Knight's Challenge? Is it bad design implementation or flawed basis? How can we improve upon them?

A lot of you guys also make it seem that S&B is a primarily defensive tactic that makes no sense in the D&D combat system (which favors overwhelming Defense). Therefore Shield Bashing is much more popular. Is it possible to be both a Defense Shield Basher, or is Shield Bashing the only way to use S&B in DnD?

A full round action to mark? That's terrible. It is no fun to mark if you cannot attack that round as well. Make it a swift/free action or make it mark if you attack a target.

[RndmNumGen]

Shields would probably be a lot better if they deflected attacks instead of just adding to AC. Something like a 20-30% miss chance.

[AslanCross]

Shields would probably be a lot better if they deflected attacks instead of just adding to AC. Something like a 20-30% miss chance.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. Shields give too small a bonus to keep you alive longer than usual; flat-out killing enemies quickly (via two-handed weapons and Power Attack) ends up preserving one's life longer than simply trying to deflect attacks with a piddly +1 or +2 AC.

[MeeposFire]

I hate adding on miss chance. Just another roll that bogs down the game. Regardless shields need stuff that actively cause trouble for the enemy. A miss chance discourages an enemy from attacking you even more. Enemies already ignore shield users which limits the effectiveness of the shield. You need to have active benefits like two handed weapon get with power attack to make shields good (bashing and ways to compel monsters to attack you are examples of these).

[AslanCross]

Compelling enemies to attack you isn't something that's inherent to the S&B style, though. It's more something that the character can do. This compulsion effect would work well with any tanking character, be it a Guisarme-wielding Crusader or a Greatsword fighter or a Spiked Chain tripper. The S&B fighter would still be behind, even with the same ability.

I'm thinking of the S&B style on its own, and not MMO-style tanking mechanics. The Knight can already do that (somewhat). What I was thinking of is vanilla S&B fighters.

[randomhero00]

Shield attacks that do status damage. Plain and simple. For instance every time you hit (max once per round) you get a free shield slam. Depending on feats, it could apply anything from daze to stun.

[MeeposFire]

Compelling enemies to attack you isn't something that's inherent to the S&B style, though. It's more something that the character can do. This compulsion effect would work well with any tanking character, be it a Guisarme-wielding Crusader or a Greatsword fighter or a Spiked Chain tripper. The S&B fighter would still be behind, even with the same ability.

I'm thinking of the S&B style on its own, and not MMO-style tanking mechanics. The Knight can already do that (somewhat). What I was thinking of is vanilla S&B fighters.

If you say so. I fail to see how what most of what is being posted makes the shield truly useful. Shields make you harder to hit and yet that is no good if they decide to ignore you.

[Tvtyrant]

If you say so. I fail to see how what most of what is being posted makes the shield truly useful. Shields make you harder to hit and yet that is no good if they decide to ignore you.

You still get to hit them anyway; if we are assuming an optimized party the wizard is more than capable of protecting himself, so tanking for him is pointless. "Oh look he cast fly again." The real reason you would want a S&B is to make the melee people less squishy and so able to attack things without the fight just being about grabbing initiative. Uberchargers are essentially just SoD effects made into a person.

[The Glyphstone]

If you say so. I fail to see how what most of what is being posted makes the shield truly useful. Shields make you harder to hit and yet that is no good if they decide to ignore you.

...That's exactly what he was trying to say, you know. S+B doesn't necessarily imply 'tank', it just makes that person harder to hit at the cost of (significantly) lower damage.

Personally, I like the idea of status effects, or maybe tactical maneuvers based on having a sword and shield. You do less damage than a two-hander, but would be more survivable, and apply stuns/dazes/staggers/whatevers to your targets.

[JKTrickster]

Compelling enemies to attack you isn't something that's inherent to the S&B style, though. It's more something that the character can do. This compulsion effect would work well with any tanking character, be it a Guisarme-wielding Crusader or a Greatsword fighter or a Spiked Chain tripper. The S&B fighter would still be behind, even with the same ability.

I'm thinking of the S&B style on its own, and not MMO-style tanking mechanics. The Knight can already do that (somewhat). What I was thinking of is vanilla S&B fighters.

So would you say Shield Bashing is this inherent style?

This is the core thing I'm trying to get at. What is the true style of S&B? Should it be shield bashing? Or a method of trying to compel others to attack you?

[MeeposFire]

So would you say Shield Bashing is this inherent style?

This is the core thing I'm trying to get at. What is the true style of S&B? Should it be shield bashing? Or a method of trying to compel others to attack you?

Both I would say. Though compel to attack you is more of giving them a reason to attack you (not forced to attack you in general). For instance ignore my character with a shield and I get to hit you again. You can choose to ignore me but it is dangerous for you.

[Tvtyrant]

Ultimate S&B is a Bloodstorm that full attacks at range and hides behind a tower shield.

[RndmNumGen]

If you say so. I fail to see how what most of what is being posted makes the shield truly useful. Shields make you harder to hit and yet that is no good if they decide to ignore you.

The point of a shield is to keep you alive. If enemies don't attack you, then it has succeeded in this goal. As far as enemies ignoring you and circling around to attack squishier targets, that is a problem with battlefield control and not with the shield itself.

[MeeposFire]

The point of a shield is to keep you alive. If enemies don't attack you, then it has succeeded in this goal. As far as enemies ignoring you and circling around to attack squishier targets, that is a problem with battlefield control and not with the shield itself.

Yea except without this all it means you are ignored until all better threats are taken care of. Why should I bother attacking the weak shield guy when the two handed guy deals way more damage? Enemies are not ignoring you because the shield makes you too good at defense, they ignore you because you are mostly useless in combat.

Status effects help but unless they are huge it will not be enough to make shield users very effective. Notice I do not think that all shields should have defender abilities but it should be a good option for them.

[WinWin]

The problem is that shields simply offer a bonus to AC that does not scale well.

At 1st level, a bonus to AC is a reasonable trade off for damage. By 6th level, to bonus to AC is not a reasonable trade-off compared to the potential damage dealt by PA.

Even if you incentivise shield use, you run the risk of buffing the opposition. A rampaging war troll can now potentially be a PA nightmare or an unvanquishable, regenerating turtle. Monsters draw from the same resources as players making any 'fix' a new balance issue.

[Lans]

There needs to be a reason to hit the guy with the shield, otherwise smart opponents just hit the people he's "tanking" for. As such, shields should protect allies (in addition to the bearer) and have offensive effects... I'd follow the pattern of Shield Charge and Shield Slam, and have shield attacks debuff enemies.

JaronK

Their are a couple feats for this.


The easiest solution is to accept that a shield user in 3.5 will be a shieldbasher. Make a feat that gives TWF for shields only, doesn't require 15 Dex, .

Why would you do this, when you can just THF with the shield?


Yea except without this all it means you are ignored until all better threats are taken care of. Why should I bother attacking the weak shield guy when the two handed guy deals way more damage? Enemies are not ignoring you because the shield makes you too good at defense, they ignore you because you are mostly useless in combat.

Because he could be a Cleric with the Time domain.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Characters should very rarely be defined by their choice of equipment. Using a sword and board shouldn't imply you're going to use a certain niche combat style, and so shields shouldn't give you abilities that play to those niches. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, but you don't need to hand out qualitative changes and complete mechanical do-overs to a slab of wood any peasant could pick up when you can instead open up the Tome of Battle and have the character do a bunch of awesome things.

[prufock]

Deflect and Block talents from Star Wars Saga, but using a shield instead of lightsaber. Opposed attack rolls, using the shield's bonus as a special modifier.

Interpose feat from Mutants and Masterminds. Attacks target you instead of an adjacent ally.

[erikun]

1.) Give the shield fighter some options not available to the 2H fighter. Something like stunning when hitting with a shield, or getting a bonus to hit when using a shield (under the logic that they can't see your movement behind it), or simply not allowing opponents to pass through adjacent squares of a shield user. Shield users are still in the fight, so they need some reason to choose a shield over a greatsword that is relevant to the combat they are participating in. (Being harder to hit doesn't quite do it.)

2.) Give the shield some meaningful defensive properities. Something like preventing AoOs during movement, or applying to touch AC/Reflex, or covering for allies. The point of a shield is to keep yourself save, but also to keep people behind you safe as well.

3.) Remove animated shields, or nerf them so that they are not such a beneficial option. 2HF will always dominate over S&B as long as the guy with the greatsword can get 90% of the benefit from shields by buying a single magical item.

I'm not too keen on nerfing 2HF as a means to make shields "viable". Most of the benefits that 2HF gets are to keep it meaningful against the HP bloat in the system; nerfing that just makes all melee moot, rather than making shields more useful.

There is also the problem of 2HF taking only three feats to be practical - something you could probably achieve as early as 2nd level - while shields require two feats just to provide anything beyond +1 AC. Most shield-oriented feats would be better without prerequisites, or as options for any shieldbearer to use.

[JKTrickster]

Characters should very rarely be defined by their choice of equipment. Using a sword and board shouldn't imply you're going to use a certain niche combat style, and so shields shouldn't give you abilities that play to those niches. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, but you don't need to hand out qualitative changes and complete mechanical do-overs to a slab of wood any peasant could pick up when you can instead open up the Tome of Battle and have the character do a bunch of awesome things.

Hmm this gives me something to think about. If the majority of the mechanical benefits of S&B came from feats/class abilities, wouldn't that solve the "shields are too weak" or "animated shields make S&B useless" problem?

Yet at the same time, it cannot be too feat intensive like Two Weapon Fighting, (instead I should be aiming for Power Attack, etc. level of feat investment correct?)

But that would force a choice between better defenses/attracting attention and shield bashing. Or is there still a way to incorporate both?

[MeeposFire]

You can attract attention by dealing a lot of damage or by giving out trully nasty status effects. Extra attacks off your turn help as well.

Feat intensive is ok as long as each feat is powerful and useful in its own right.

you can have several feat trees

1) Devoted to making shield bashing truly nasty.

2) Make feats devoted to a defender build that involves making ignoring you dangerous.

3) Make each feat good on its own and synergize with other feats. Adding all these feats together should have an even bigger bonus this way the fighter gets a special bonus that only he (or classes like him with lots of feats) can obtain.

[JaronK]

Their are a couple feats for this.

Obviously. That's why I mentioned them in the very post you just quoted. The idea is there should probably be a few more.

JaronK

[Lans]

Obviously. That's why I mentioned them in the very post you just quoted. The idea is there should probably be a few more.

JaronK

I meant the protect allies part.

[Aemoh87]

Sword and Board cannot compete since:

A. Healing is cheap.
B. Resistance is better than AC
C. Magic is a major source of resistances.

[Tyndmyr]

Shields should also give a bonus to Touch AC and Reflex saves without the need of a feat.

Eh, yeah, probably at least one of those.

Also, just flat out double the AC value of all shields. Suddenly, shields are viable.


Sword and Board cannot compete since:

A. Healing is cheap.
B. Resistance is better than AC
C. Magic is a major source of resistances.

These are unimportant, currently. Even if none of those existed, beating someone down rapidly with a two hander is more efficient than using a shield. That makes all the rest irrelevant.

The targetting is not an issue. Just because you have a shield does not mean you should be able to force people to attack you.

[Doug Lampert]

I REALLY dislike the popular suggestion of letting shield bash impose status effects. What's so special about being hit with a shield that it does something a Halbard doesn't?


As stated the biggest weaknesses are that enemies don't have any reason to focus on you

Right. If you don't want the shield to provide some absurd boost to attacks, you need to first get rid of the ability of monsters to ignore melee (this is a good thing for ANY melee, not just for shield fighters).

Make up something like a "bodyguard" feat. Any non-area attack launched against anyone within reach of someone with this feat may be forced to go against the bodyguard instead. This applies even if the bodyguard is outside of normal range or reach of the attack (he leaps in front and then returns to start really really fast).


Interpose feat from Mutants and Masterminds. Attacks target you instead of an adjacent ally.

Like this.


Shields should also give a bonus to Touch AC and Reflex saves without the need of a feat.

That to.


The targetting is not an issue. Just because you have a shield does not mean you should be able to force people to attack you.

Right, it shouldn't be because you have a shield, ANY melee should be able to force the foe to attack him in preference to ignoring him and attacking the guy he is specifically and dedicatedly trying to protect!

Increasing shield bonuses would also help. magic lets shields scale at about the right rate once you kill animated shields, but the initial values are a bit low, Buckler +1, Light +2, Heavy +3, Wall +5 would be better.

And, as any number of people have pointed out, KILL animated shields.

[MammonAzrael]

Characters should very rarely be defined by their choice of equipment. Using a sword and board shouldn't imply you're going to use a certain niche combat style, and so shields shouldn't give you abilities that play to those niches. Maybe the numbers need tweaking, but you don't need to hand out qualitative changes and complete mechanical do-overs to a slab of wood any peasant could pick up when you can instead open up the Tome of Battle and have the character do a bunch of awesome things.

I disagree. Especially at lower levels, what equipment a character chooses should absolutely be a defining part of the character. Choosing a two-handed weapon clearly telegraphs your intent for damage at the cost of defense, both in game and IRL. Choosing the use a shield clearly indicates some balance between a deadly weapon and a way to keep other's deadly weapons from being deadly to you. Your equipment should be playing precisely into the "niche" that you wish to fill. They help define what you're capable of in combat, and what your focuses are. (though any goading or taunting abilities should be intrinsic to the character or magical...mundane equipment should not offer it)

And with your ToB example, note that all the maneuvers that work for Sword'n'Board fighters work equally well, if not better, for fighters that can tack on the extra damage of two-handing.

On the note of animated shields...I think they can still work, assuming other shield fixes are implemented. For instance, if you give shields an AC and Reflex save bonus that scales with BAB, cool. Then have the Animated shield only apply it's base AC bonus, and no reflex bonus. You know, just like how it works now.

[erikun]

I REALLY dislike the popular suggestion of letting shield bash impose status effects. What's so special about being hit with a shield that it does something a Halbard doesn't?
Shield bashing isn't just trying to hit someone in the face with a buckler. It is basically a body check, coming from behind the equilivant of a solid steel door.

Any yes, I realize that the proper use of a sword involves putting some weight behind it rather than just rely on shoulder muscles to do the work - but the effect of a sword or halberd is to cut through armor and into someone. The effect of a shield bash is to force someone to move and knock them off center. If a shield bash is treated as nothing more than a stab from a sidesword, then there is never any reason to use it.

[Havelock]

Crusader/Warblade is a good equaliser to begin with. Power Attack looses it's charm when the damage output is overshadowed by whatever the maneuver does. Superior choice in the first place over fighter, but hey.

My GM bans animated shields, but anyways, more feat options might be nice, such as:
-Ability to give up the benefits of AC (and shieldbash) to give an adjacent enemy one of the following benefits:
Concealment
The AC bonus from your shield (including touch attacks)
cover bonus
targetted effects hits you instead

[The Cat Goddess]

1) Agree that Shields should add to Touch AC. If the wizard touches your Shield, he's not touching You.

2) Give Shields an additional bonus to AC when Fighting Defensively. Seriously, it's much easier to fight defensively with a Shield than without one.

3) Give Shield wielders a bonus against Gaze attacks, when the wielder is aware they need it. Being able to quickly raise one's Shield to avoid a directed Gaze attack is pretty standard.

4) Allow Shield wielders to Brace against a Charge, just like you can with a Spear. Again, very appropriate. Perhaps even allow a Shield wielder to step into the path of a charging/moving foe and stop their movement entirely.

5) Tower Shields can already be used to provide Full Cover... why not allow Large Shields to be used to provide Partial Cover?

6) Allow the "Throwing" & "Returning" enchantments on Shields. :smallbiggrin:

[Zen Master]

What's wrong with shields is primarily that they are items - like chalk, or 10' poles, or ink. Whereas power attack is a feat.

So weapon is to shield as power attack is to [non-existant feat].

In other words: When power attack doubles damage many times over, a shield needs to double mitigation many times over. It needs to provide - for instance - a 100% mitigation of select attacks, thus becoming a counter to power attack insta-kills.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

What about taking a phalanx as inspiration? i.e., a S&B character can guard adjacent squares. Enemies can't kill the caster unless they can get to the caster, with the exception of ranged attackers who the S&B fighter can't exactly stop either.

So, some way to threaten/bog down adjacent squares?

That goes heavy into houseruling, though.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I disagree. Especially at lower levels, what equipment a character chooses should absolutely be a defining part of the character. Choosing a two-handed weapon clearly telegraphs your intent for damage at the cost of defense, both in game and IRL. Choosing the use a shield clearly indicates some balance between a deadly weapon and a way to keep other's deadly weapons from being deadly to you.What I meant was that defining abilities or features shouldn't come from the equipment. At low levels, the tradeoff is between damage and AC, which somewhat reflects a character's style, but not completely. If a low level greatsword wielder finds a magic shortsword and shield, do you expect him to shrug and put the vendor trash in his pack?

Your equipment should be playing precisely into the "niche" that you wish to fill. They help define what you're capable of in combat, and what your focuses are. (though any goading or taunting abilities should be intrinsic to the character or magical...mundane equipment should not offer it)When I play melee, I don't like to pidgeonhole my character into a particular niche. Standing next to someone who can cast any type of spell he pleases, the mundane character should be able to pick up any of a variety of weapons and beat faces with it.

And with your ToB example, note that all the maneuvers that work for Sword'n'Board fighters work equally well, if not better, for fighters that can tack on the extra damage of two-handing.The Insightful Strike line wants a word with you.

[MammonAzrael]

What I meant was that defining abilities or features shouldn't come from the equipment. At low levels, the tradeoff is between damage and AC, which somewhat reflects a character's style, but not completely. If a low level greatsword wielder finds a magic shortsword and shield, do you expect him to shrug and put the vendor trash in his pack?

Ok...so then should a shortsword and a longbow be just as non-defining? If someone is focused on wielding a greatsword then I expect them to shrug at any magical weapons of a different style unless the magical aspects are significant enough to invalidate the effort already devoted towards specializing in a greatsword. And that person will switch back to a greatsword once a weapon of roughly equal value is found.


When I play melee, I don't like to pidgeonhole my character into a particular niche. Standing next to someone who can cast any type of spell he pleases, the mundane character should be able to pick up any of a variety of weapons and beat faces with it.

If you want that kind of versatility, then don't play a mundane character. Melee can have nice things, but mundane is mundane. Of course the fighter can pick up whatever weapon is at hand. That doesn't negate the fact that he will be better able to beat face with weapons he has specially trained in.

The fact is that your weapon choice helps define you. It isn't as large a definition as feats or PrCs, but it is there. If you are wielding a shield your fighting style will be more defensive than someone who has sacrificed that defense for the power of wielding a weapon in two hands, or a second weapon. The problem is that as the rules stand now, it is an alarmingly inferior choice. The entire point of increasing a shield's impact is to make the shield, an item, a more defining characteristic of a character, one that is mechanically valid and useful.


The Insightful Strike line wants a word with you.

I'm afraid not. Note that I said all strikes work just as well, if not better, for those that wield a weapon in two hands. Insightful Strike and it's greater cousin work just as well for two-handed weapons as with Sword'n'Board. The maneuvers will deal the same damage with either style. In fact, the only reason the Insightful line would be a poor choice for a Two-Hander is if the damage it offered was inferior to a standard attack. The only way the Insightful line, or any other strikes, would be better suited with a shield is if the shield offered more than a negligible bonus to AC. Which is the issue this thread is attempting to address.

There is not a single strike that is superior with the Sword'n'Board style over two-handing it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Ok...so then should a shortsword and a longbow be just as non-defining? If someone is focused on wielding a greatsword then I expect them to shrug at any magical weapons of a different style unless the magical aspects are significant enough to invalidate the effort already devoted towards specializing in a greatsword. And that person will switch back to a greatsword once a weapon of roughly equal value is found.My point is that there doesn't necessarily have to be so much specialization there.

If you want that kind of versatility, then don't play a mundane character. Melee can have nice things, but mundane is mundane. Of course the fighter can pick up whatever weapon is at hand. That doesn't negate the fact that he will be better able to beat face with weapons he has specially trained in.That's a flaw of the fighter, though. Mundane *can* have nice things; you just have to look beyond core.

The fact is that your weapon choice helps define you. It isn't as large a definition as feats or PrCs, but it is there. If you are wielding a shield your fighting style will be more defensive than someone who has sacrificed that defense for the power of wielding a weapon in two hands, or a second weapon.I didn't mean to imply it had or should have no effect on the character, but the proposed abilities were making it so that the shield was the central element to the character's abilities. That shouldn't be the case.

The problem is that as the rules stand now, it is an alarmingly inferior choice. The entire point of increasing a shield's impact is to make the shield, an item, a more defining characteristic of a character, one that is mechanically valid and useful.I'm all in favor of improving shields. I was only arguing against qualitative changes like miss chance, or piles upon piles of shield-dependent abilities. Not only that, but it seems like people forget that a shield gives you another item to cheaply add magical armor properties; for instance, if we're so concerned about shields adding to touch AC, MiC already does that at a cost.


I'm afraid not. Note that I said all strikes work just as well, if not better, for those that wield a weapon in two hands. Insightful Strike and it's greater cousin work just as well for two-handed weapons as with Sword'n'Board. The maneuvers will deal the same damage with either style. In fact, the only reason the Insightful line would be a poor choice for a Two-Hander is if the damage it offered was inferior to a standard attack. The only way the Insightful line, or any other strikes, would be better suited with a shield is if the shield offered more than a negligible bonus to AC. Which is the issue this thread is attempting to address.You can't pretend a bonus doesn't exist just because it's low. A THFer will do the same damage as a S&Ber but not get the bonus to AC, so it's an inferior maneuver for him. The benefits granted by a shield is only negligible if it's nonmagical, which is a difficult assumption to make given we're using Insightful Strike or its Greater cousin. Recall that the shield can be enchanted further, and add to touch AC. Maybe the AC bonus should be around +4 instead of +2, and maybe it should add to touch AC without needing a magical enhancement. I'd support those. But goading mechanics, miss chances, and feat trees? No thanks.

[Lord.Sorasen]

What if the shield invoked something similar to tumble? One could, theoretically, use their shield to avoid leaving openings when they, say, step into or away from someone's threat range. A bonus to bull rush could be a similar idea. Someone with a weapon in two hands is going to deal more damage than someone with a shield. But it at least feels like someone with a shield would be able to do some things a two weapon fighter wouldn't dare. They could easily avoid long ranged arrows, push forward through tough spaces, defend even the strongest of blows...

Also shields to touch attack seems pretty good.

[AslanCross]

I REALLY dislike the popular suggestion of letting shield bash impose status effects. What's so special about being hit with a shield that it does something a Halbard doesn't?


I'm with you on this. At most, characters should be able to use shield bashing as a preemptive counterattack, but really, many blunt weapons are better-designed for inflicting massive blunt trauma.

[JaronK]

The idea is for shields to do something useful that isn't just a clone of TWF or THF. Right now, THF is king... it provides reach and, with Power Attack, incredible damage. TWF is more of a niche thing, but crit heavy builds and builds with lots of precision damage work well with it. But what do shields have? They give you a small boost to AC, which eventually becomes useless and is never terribly great. Tanks don't need more AC, what they need is the ability to protect their party mates in useful ways so their job can't be better done with disposable (but tough) minions like zombies.

Status effects naturally do this... an enemy who is dazed or stunned or tripped is unlikely to hit party members, so if shield bashing creates such effects, the result is that shields are a defensive benefit to the whole party, and that's actually worth something.

Plus, that's the direction D&D already took with Shield Charge and Shield Slam.

JaronK

[Spiryt]

I'm with you on this. At most, characters should be able to use shield bashing as a preemptive counterattack, but really, many blunt weapons are better-designed for inflicting massive blunt trauma.

It should just to balance it. Not much more is needed.

Any wondering about blunt weapons doing that or that is IMO assuming that 3.5 system makes much sense, or realistically portraits anything, which is not the case.

And anyway, someone who attacks with both shield and weapon some options of penalizing enemy is perfectly reasonable, as pretty much any shield was not only defense, or thing to bash stuff with, but with all it's applications, an item that allowed you to outwork your opponent completely, if used correctly.

[paddyfool]

How about if shields boosted your ability to do battlefield control? Put simply, it's easier to safely get in someone's way and/or push them around if you do it from behind a shield. Here's one way you could do it as a feat or class ability:

Mobile wall
Requirements: Strength 15+
While using a shield other than a buckler with which you are proficient, opponents must pass a DC (15 + 1/2 your BAB) tumble check to pass successfully through squares within your natural reach. If they fail the check, their move ends and they become flat-footed. This is in addition to any attacks of opportunity which they may provoke.

(Similar to the feat that allows you to stop people's moves with an attack of opportunity, except that it doesn't require a high dex + combat reflexes to be effective; of course, it's still not going to help against flying opponents etc., but it's a start).

Alternatively, they could allow you to buff other characters slightly, making eliminating or moving you useful to your opponents:

Shield wall
Adjacent allies gain 1/2 your shield bonus to their AC as an untyped bonus (round up).

A few house rules that might also help would be that characters may add their shield's AC to make or resist bull rush checks, that shield bonuses to AC always counts towards touch AC, and that shield bonuses to AC increase with increasing BAB somehow as previously discussed.

[MammonAzrael]

My point is that there doesn't necessarily have to be so much specialization there.

I agree. And the primary reason for this is Power Attack. Without that nearly all feats that specialize in a type of weapon are pretty poor choices.


That's a flaw of the fighter, though. Mundane *can* have nice things; you just have to look beyond core.

I agree. The lack of variety is is an issue with core. Melee, and mundane, can have nice things. And melee can have magical things, which is the best way aside from skill points to increase your variety. Mundane, by its deffinition, cannot have magical things, which means it needs to find other ways to increase it's variety. Like items.

(Note that I am making a distinct difference between melee and mundane. And archer can be mundane, and a Swiftblade is still melee.)


I didn't mean to imply it had or should have no effect on the character, but the proposed abilities were making it so that the shield was the central element to the character's abilities. That shouldn't be the case.

Why? Won't choosing to wield a bow be a central element to a character's abilities. If a character chooses to wield a shield then it should have a significant impact on their combat capabilities, shouldn't it? And tying a shields abilities to BAB or proficiency will help to give nice things to melee characters that aren't also handed to casters.


I'm all in favor of improving shields. I was only arguing against qualitative changes like miss chance, or piles upon piles of shield-dependent abilities. Not only that, but it seems like people forget that a shield gives you another item to cheaply add magical armor properties; for instance, if we're so concerned about shields adding to touch AC, MiC already does that at a cost.

Yes, at a cost. Melee characters already have a large amount of gear they need to spend money on, adding another is not the way to go. Nor is it an advantage over wielding a two-handed weapon. And most of those enhancements, frankly, aren't worth the money. Why do melee characters have to spend more money to get nice things instead of getting them for free, like casters do?


You can't pretend a bonus doesn't exist just because it's low. A THFer will do the same damage as a S&Ber but not get the bonus to AC, so it's an inferior maneuver for him. The benefits granted by a shield is only negligible if it's nonmagical, which is a difficult assumption to make given we're using Insightful Strike or its Greater cousin. Recall that the shield can be enchanted further, and add to touch AC. Maybe the AC bonus should be around +4 instead of +2, and maybe it should add to touch AC without needing a magical enhancement. I'd support those. But goading mechanics, miss chances, and feat trees? No thanks.

I agree, there is a small bonus to AC. however, that bonus is usually negligible regardless of the level it is enchanted at (or can afford to be enchanted at), given the speed that opponents attack bonuses scale. And assuming that the shield is enchanted means the character spent money enchanting it, while the two-handed character got to spend that money on something else...something that likely gave more than a +1 AC boost.

As for the rest...


I agree, shields should add to touch AC. I also think adding to at least some reflex saves makes perfect sense.
I agree that goading mechanics should not be granted with a shield. I can see then as a feat, skill trick, or magical enchantment, but not an intrinsic property of shields.
I think a miss chance could work, provided it isn't too big, requires you to be proficient with the shield, and can possibly be improved. The biggest advantage is that it would grant a constant, mundane miss chance, which would be a terrific boon and compelling reason to use a shield. If its flavor that is bothering you, then just think about it that missed attacks are being blocked with the shield completely.
Feat trees are not the way to fix things, I agree.

[JKTrickster]

I'm just wondering, but how does everyone believe bucklers factor into this? I find it hard to imagine a buckler shield basher or anything of the like. Should it be included in these upgrades?

[Jay R]

They need rules that accurately reflect what shields can do.

The following comments are based, not on D&D rules, but on more than three decades of using a shield in SCA combat, including studying fighting manuals from the 15th and 16th centuries..

The value of the shield is significantly greater than that given in any D&D rules I've ever seen (OD&D, AD&D 1E, and AD&D 2E). These rules give it a 5% improvement in defense. This is absurdly low.

First of all, the improvement in defense is much more than 5%. But much more importantly, shieldmen side by side are almost completely covered, because the opponent can't get around the shield any more, but only over it (or, rarely, under it).

A wedge of shieldmen can break through almost any number of non-shielded fighters. The only good defense against a shield wedge is a line of shieldmen to hold them back, ideally backed with spearmen behind them to reach out over the shields.

Even in single combat, the shield does much more than merely block shots. One goal is to put it where it prevents the opponent from throwing any shots (by pressing it against his right arm). I would allow this by saying that a successful strike against the opponent with the shield immobilizes the sword until the opponent manages to back out of range with a STR vs. STR or DEX vs. DEX roll.

The shield controls what blows the opponent can throw, and learning to fight involves learning how to get around the other fighter's shield.

If I have a shield and my opponent doesn't, and he's only somewhat better than I am, I expect to win, nearly always. I think a fifth-level fighter with a shield should be more than a match against a seventh or eight level fighter without one.

Most (not all) top-level SCA fighters use the shield in their most important bouts, because it's the best overall combination. Until that is reflected in the D&D fighting rules, the shield will be (quite properly) ignored as a nearly useless way to give up half your weapons.

[erikun]

I'm just wondering, but how does everyone believe bucklers factor into this? I find it hard to imagine a buckler shield basher or anything of the like. Should it be included in these upgrades?
You can't shield bash with a buckler anyways.

A buckler kind of represents the most basic level of shield defense. It has the lowest AC and can't do any of the fancy "tricks" of the larger shields. If I had my way, I'd make nonproficient users get absolutely no benefit from a buckler (thrusting your arm into an oncoming sword swing is not natural) and give it no offensive value. It is quite enough to be getting the benefits of wearing a shield - AC, preferably touch AC and Reflex bonus - without giving it any more.

I would also give rogues and bards proficiency in bucklers, if they don't already have it.

[paddyfool]

@Jay R,

Interesting. Have you tried that wedge-of-shields against a well-organised formation of pikes? (With 4 or 5 rows of pikeheads to break through before you get to the opponent, I'm not sure I'd want to trust to a shield, although it would be great if you could outflank them).

[Jay R]

@Jay R,

Interesting. Have you tried that wedge-of-shields against a well-organised formation of pikes? (With 4 or 5 rows of pikeheads to break through before you get to the opponent, I'm not sure I'd want to trust to a shield, although it would be great if you could outflank them).

No, that's one area in which the SCA rules are inaccurately pro-shield. The shields are invulnerable -- the pike can't break through it and stop the charger. And the maximum pike or spear length is nine feet.

Having said that, the primary purpose of a pike square is to stop a cavalry charge. If I had shieldmen facing a shieldless pike square, the correct response is to put up a stationary shield wall and trade missile weapon fire, because a pike square is undefended against arrows, but a shield wall is. By the Napoleonic era, armies were trained to form a square when a charge was coming, and re-deploy into a line to get all their missile weapons (muskets by that time) active. (The pike-equivalent by them was a bayonet on the musket.)

[WinWin]

Add a combat maneuver, block. Just as trips can only be performed with certain weapons, block can only be performed with certain weapons and shields.

Block. A character attempst to block and readies an action to counter the next attack. Before the next attack on the blocking character is resolved, make an opposed roll. The attacker adds all normal modifiers to the roll as though performing a normal attack. The defender uses their melee attack bonus modified by the defensive modifier of the shield. If the defenders opposed roll equals or exceeds the attackers, that attack is negated. Block can only be used against melee attacks and ranged attacks from attackers that can be observed by the defender.

Fairly simple. Then add in a few feats that allow multiple blocks depending on BAB, or even split up blocks with normall allotment of attacks. Improved block to lessen the action requirements and give a bonus to the opposed roll. Evasive Block to defend against AoE's. Maybe even a Counterattack feat that allows a melee attack at a penalty against a character that triggered a block.

Something like this would change the paradigm of shield use from a passive benefit to an active defense.

[paddyfool]

@Jay R,

Got it.

@Winwin,

The trouble with active defense is similar to that with a miss chance - it simply takes too long to resolve.

[Tyndmyr]

No, that's one area in which the SCA rules are inaccurately pro-shield. The shields are invulnerable -- the pike can't break through it and stop the charger. And the maximum pike or spear length is nine feet.

I play dag, which has a different ruleset than SCA. It does share the fact that pikes don't break shields, but it lacks the length restriction. In addition, lengthy slashing weapons like glaives CAN break shields from fairly far away. Shields are still pretty common, and a shield wall is certainly the most commonly used formation and certainly the most generally effective.

Typically, spears work in conjunction with shields, rather than massing against them. Spears are great for working from right behind the shield wall. A good mess of spears is helpful in breaking up a shield wall, yes...but it's still far from one-sided. When you get down to things like dueling, shields are heavily favored.

I don't think there's any good way to use a realistic approach to shields in D&D though. I'd be satisfied with simply boosting the AC value to make them a more reliable defensive option for both gameplay and realism reasons.

[Aldizog]

The three feats that seem best to incorporate are Block Arrow (HoB), Shield Specialization (PHBII), and Shield Ward (PHBII).

Give one or two for free? Incorporate all of them into Shield Specialization? Something like that?

[subject42]

I hope I'm not violating some unwritten forum rule by invoking his name, but have you looked at the shield mechanics suggested by Frank Trollman?

Every shield has additional bonuses and abilities that are tied to skill ranks or BAB. The end result is that shields grant unique abilities that scale with character level.

[Tyndmyr]

He'd be one of the Tome folks, right? I strongly dislike their idea of balance, and feel that it doesn't mesh well with the original feel of D&D. As such, I don't think you can easily mix and match in material from the Tomes into regular games without causing huge power mismatches.

[subject42]

He'd be one of the Tome folks, right? I strongly dislike their idea of balance, and feel that it doesn't mesh well with the original feel of D&D. As such, I don't think you can easily mix and match in material from the Tomes into regular games without causing huge power mismatches.

I believe he is, in fact, one of the Tome folks. Most of his suggestions are crazy broken outside of an all Tier 1 powergamer party, but the shields struck me as being something that might be usable in a more normal group.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm honestly not familiar with the shield info as such. I do worry that it might be overly complicated though. Part of the reason I favor simply increasing the AC bonus is that it's among the easiest possible ways to represent the added defensive value of a shield.

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm honestly not familiar with the shield info as such. I do worry that it might be overly complicated though. Part of the reason I favor simply increasing the AC bonus is that it's among the easiest possible ways to represent the added defensive value of a shield.

Having regularly used a shield, I'd actually represent a shield as a miss chance, or maybe have it add an AC bonus plus a fraction of your Dex modifier if you really must.

[Tyndmyr]

Having regularly used a shield, I'd actually represent a shield as a miss chance, or maybe have it add an AC bonus plus a fraction of your Dex modifier if you really must.

Miss chance has been discussed earlier. The big problem is that it adds another roll to every attack. The pure AC idea is fairly abstract...but that's mostly how defense works in D&D. Any system where you add magical bonuses, dodging, size modifiers and armor together is inherently going to be fairly abstract and not great at representing each of these things. It'd be a bloody pain to go through them all individually, though.

I would be ok with increasing the dex caps on shields. Dexterous people can generally use pretty decently sized shields to good effect. I'd like to see the unarmored person with a shield as a viable option.

[Darth Stabber]

Shield Block - once per round as an immediate action, you may attempt to use your shield to deflect an on coming attack. Make an attack roll with your shield(opposed by the incoming attack roll), If you succeed the attack it negated.

[Dire Moose]

Shield Block - once per round as an immediate action, you may attempt to use your shield to deflect an on coming attack. Make an attack roll with your shield(opposed by the incoming attack roll), If you succeed the attack it negated.

I like this one a lot. I might allow characters to use this without a feat while risking AoOs, while making Improved Shield Block (including a +4 to the deflection roll) a feat. Also, I would include the usual catch of "cannot be used with a buckler or a tower shield".

[MeeposFire]

I like this one a lot. I might allow characters to use this without a feat while risking AoOs, while making Improved Shield Block (including a +4 to the deflection roll) a feat. Also, I would include the usual catch of "cannot be used with a buckler or a tower shield".

That is not a good idea in my opinion. Risk X attacks (X=number of enemies in range) to block one attack? That is a terrible trade at any time. In your game without a feat that ability is a liability to use not a benefit.

[Dire Moose]

Ah, I hadn't considered that. In that case, the feat just gives a +4 to deflection rolls and blocking never provokes AoOs.

[Darth Stabber]

Yeah, provoking makes it worse than useless. Honestly without making AC matter at higher levels, shields are a silly proposition. 3.5 is all about making the other guy dead before he hits you, and AC doesn't factor into it. HP and damage are what really matters.


Strangely enough shields do work well in 4e, where 2 armor can make or break you.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, provoking makes it worse than useless. Honestly without making AC matter at higher levels, shields are a silly proposition. 3.5 is all about making the other guy dead before he hits you, and AC doesn't factor into it. HP and damage are what really matters.


Strangely enough shields do work well in 4e, where 2 armor can make or break you.

That is because the math is different. 4e is designed around the idea that monsters of around your level have a fair chance of hitting you (and you can be missed) and vice versa with you and monsters. That makes a +1 important in that system whereas a +1 in 3.5 becomes quickly obsolete.

[subject42]

I'm honestly not familiar with the shield info as such. I do worry that it might be overly complicated though. Part of the reason I favor simply increasing the AC bonus is that it's among the easiest possible ways to represent the added defensive value of a shield.

Here's a quick example of one of the shields. There are a whole host of them in the tome (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDoQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fturing.bard.edu%2F~mk561%2Ffrank_ k_0.5.1.pdf&rct=j&q=frank%20trollman%20tome%20shield&ei=mPpaTb-gFIeFtgf3j9C0Cw&usg=AFQjCNGifSyF62kKNB2TWryQAzIz8rJGzQ&sig2=4qHC3CIyTXJJGWlgFUHMww&cad=rja), each with different quirks. I just picked one at random.

I've debated implementing them in a game in the future. Let me know if you think they would be worthwhile as a player.

Dragonscale Shield
BAB Benefit
+1: Each shield provides energy resistance to a specific energy type as appropriate to the dragon whose scales formed the shield. The resistance is equal to the shield bonus that the shield provides.
+5: The shield bonus of the shield adds to your reflex saves against supernatural abilities.
+10: You gain a +4 bonus to intimidate against dragons., and a similar bonus to your saving throw against fear from dragons.
+15: You gain evasion.

[Tyndmyr]

Im not adverse to the energy resistance for a dragonscale shield in specific, since that's terribly thematic for dragon stuffs.

I don't see how dragonscale = reflex based, though. Especially not why it would be specific to su abilities. This strikes me as complication that could be a lot simpler from a gaming perspective and doesn't make a great deal of sense from the realism perspective.

The intimidate/fear boost makes sense thematically, but I think it might be a bit too specific to bother with. I'm of the opinion that too many situational boosts can bog down the game as the player pokes through the list looking for what might help...or they get entirely forgotten.

[Telasi]

I'm thinking that I'll try out adding the shield's AC bonus to reflex saves and giving a miss chance of 5% per point of AC bonus in my Pathfinder campaign. That sounds reasonable to me.

[Pechvarry]

Because I'm a sucker for shielding topics... Here are some random thoughts.

As Jay R pointed out, shields have a lot of activity going on with them. You don't just take hits with it -- you use it to actively keep your opponent from being an effective attacker. I've posted around here before my proposed way to indicate this -- where shield bashing imposes large attack penalties on your opponent. But this could also be abstracted into blocking AoOs.

One thing about shields protecting adjacent allies is that it encourages getting hit by AoEs. So you could combine these ideas:

House rule: When using a shield, allies do not provoke attacks of opportunity for movement out of squares adjacent to you. Additionally, you add your shield bonus to AC to your reflex saves as well as any allies adjacent to you.

From there, you could add a feat to increase the range out to 10, and another (a "presence" type feel, likely) that allows you to add the shield bonus to all saves instead of just reflex.

Another thing I've thought about is maintaining your "threat" without a whole lot of threat range. If you're willing to really play with the core of the game...

New combat action: Intercept. As an immediate action, you may choose to move up to your distance in response to an enemy's move action. You must end this movement closer to the opponent whose move action you're interrupting. This isn't without its disadvantages. First, movement in this way provokes attacks of opportunity for entering threatened squares. Second, in addition the immediate action used for the intercept, you lose your move action for your next turn, and thus only have a standard action.
Special: if you're wielding a light shield with which you're proficient, you gain a +5 AC against the attacks of opportunity caused by intercepting. If you're wielding a heavy shield you're proficient with, the bonus to AC is instead +10.

In addition to giving everyone some means of making the turn-based combat feel more dynamic, you have shields just doing it better. My rationalization is that someone with a shield is really just that much better off when trying to focus on interception. Additionally, you can also draw out AoOs with this for your party quite well. From there, you could simply add feats. One could make it so intercepts don't take your following move action. Another could double the benefits to AC for using shields (to +10 for light- and +20 for a heavy shield).

Hope 1 person enjoyed my ramblings. laternoggin.

[subject42]

Im not adverse to the energy resistance for a dragonscale shield in specific, since that's terribly thematic for dragon stuffs.

I don't see how dragonscale = reflex based, though. Especially not why it would be specific to su abilities. This strikes me as complication that could be a lot simpler from a gaming perspective and doesn't make a great deal of sense from the realism perspective.

The intimidate/fear boost makes sense thematically, but I think it might be a bit too specific to bother with. I'm of the opinion that too many situational boosts can bog down the game as the player pokes through the list looking for what might help...or they get entirely forgotten.

Good points. I could see somebody ending up an "item monk" with too many of these bonuses floating around, in that they have 845734 abilities that don't entirely make sense with the overarching character archetype.

[The Big Dice]

Why not just incorporate the Two Weapon Defense chain (at the appropriate levels, but without Dex requirements) into Shield Proficiency? And throw in Improved Shield Bash while you're at it.

That way, you've got increasing AC as characters level up, combined with a shield being useful for more than just keeping your hand too busy to do anything useful.

Not only would you be modelling what a shield is actually used for a little better than regular D&D 3.5 rules. You'd also be using existing rules, rather than a cumbersome set of house rules.

[Twilightwyrm]

Not sure if this has been put forward, but shield spikes and two-weapon fighting help. Since the shield spike can (and indeed must) be enchanted separate from the shield, and thus can equally be given the defending special property. So that Large Steel Shield w/ Spike? +12 bonus to armor class, as much as stacking another set of +4 Full Plate. (More, if you invest in a Tower Shield) Better yet? It costs 97000, less than your a comparable +10 suit of Full Plate, much less a +11 which is essentially what it is (+11 is 1,210,000gp). Sure, this will be expensive as hell in comparison to a simply sword and set of armor, but that is to be expected for a shield wielder, and will yield an overall much higher armor bonus. Plus, you get a backup weapon in case you loose your primary one. Thus a two weapon fighting shield user will have a base 35 (37 with a tower shield) armor class once this is all equip, before Dex (which let's not forget, shields do not hamper, in addition to speed) or other equipment upgrades. Combine this with Combat Expertise, and your armor class easily out rivals a Pit Fiend if you want it to, without any other magic items or natural armor. This is in comparison to a base AC of 23 for your standard 2h power attacking warrior. I'd say this is a reasonable trade off, especially given how high the attack bonuses for monsters get at higher levels. And if you have mithral full plate, you are moving the same speed as him.

[Volos]

Why not Board and Board? Two hand a Shield with Shield Bash to get the best of both worlds. You can do massive damage and still have your shield bonus to AC or whatever else it is going to.

[JaronK]

Why not Board and Board? Two hand a Shield with Shield Bash to get the best of both worlds. You can do massive damage and still have your shield bonus to AC or whatever else it is going to.

Which works great, but it doesn't hit the classic archetypal character people want to play. Nor is it realistic that people would just use a shield and not even want the sword... but right now that's the case.

JaronK

[Lans]

Why not let a shield user autostop an attack at a certain point?

[Pechvarry]

Doesn't help them defend anyone but themselves. If you focus solely on personal defense, you're competing with dealing damage -- and you'll need so much defensive gain as to be overpowered. Focus on shields as a different party role and you don't have to compete with power attack as much, and have more idea of what needs to happen to bring it in line with other D&D options.

[Darth Stabber]

Why not Board and Board? Two hand a Shield with Shield Bash to get the best of both worlds. You can do massive damage and still have your shield bonus to AC or whatever else it is going to.

That, my good sir, is a glorious suggestion. I award you 1d4 internets, and may you lineage be free of tennis elbow.

[erikun]

Why not Board and Board? Two hand a Shield with Shield Bash to get the best of both worlds. You can do massive damage and still have your shield bonus to AC or whatever else it is going to.
This is pretty much the only way that Boarding(?) is feasable in D&D right now. Get a large shield, wield it in two hands, give it shield spikes + Bashing + size increases, and power attack away with it. It feels a bit ridiculous, but no more than tripping everyone in sight with 15' of spiked metal chain.

It doesn't help much for someone who wants to play a sword-and-shield style of character, though.

[Darth Stabber]

I love the image of a Guy charging through the dungeon to smack people with a giant chunk of sheet metal. That may be my next character. Which ToB discipline do you think would be most supportive of this.

[Aldizog]

I love the image of a Guy charging through the dungeon to smack people with a giant chunk of sheet metal. That may be my next character. Which ToB discipline do you think would be most supportive of this.
Not ToB. You want a CE halfling ranger/barbarian.

[Jarian]

I love the image of a Guy charging through the dungeon to smack people with a giant chunk of sheet metal. That may be my next character. Which ToB discipline do you think would be most supportive of this.

Iron Tortoise? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160377&highlight=Iron+Tortoise)

[JaronK]

I love the image of a Guy charging through the dungeon to smack people with a giant chunk of sheet metal. That may be my next character. Which ToB discipline do you think would be most supportive of this.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1532.0;wap2

JaronK

[JKTrickster]

Doesn't help them defend anyone but themselves. If you focus solely on personal defense, you're competing with dealing damage -- and you'll need so much defensive gain as to be overpowered. Focus on shields as a different party role and you don't have to compete with power attack as much, and have more idea of what needs to happen to bring it in line with other D&D options.

Hmm I just want to expand on this idea. Classically the shield is thought as a personal defense, but with multiple shields, it becomes the equivalent of "no you don't hit".

But in DnD, where killing the monster before it kills you is more important, this competes directly with Power Attack. Which is why shield bashing came out.

What alternative party role should Shields/Shield Bashing fit? A limited form of debuff and status effects?

[DeltaEmil]

Perhaps nerfing Power Attack back to it's 3.0-version, where two-handed weapons don't get the twice-damage bonus for every point of penalty wouldn't make shields look that bad in comparison. Two-handed weapons still deal slightly more damage because of higher strength, but not so much that every other weapon style becomes worthless. However, this is a serious nerf...

Yet, perhaps a nerf to it is needed to make it somehow balanced...

Alternatively, reduce the bonus that two-handed weapons get with power attack to perhaps so that for every three points penalty, you get one additional damage (that's just an example).

[Darth Stabber]

Alternatively, reduce the bonus that two-handed weapons get with power attack to perhaps so that for every three points penalty, you get one additional damage (that's just an example).

I agree entirely with the thought, but I suggest 3per2 as opposed to 4per3 so your power attack bonus matches STR bonus damage. If you get STR and a half why not PA and a half. Nice simple logical numbers.

However given the problem that melee needs something to be anywhere near casters, I would instead buff S&B not bebuff TH.

[DeltaEmil]

Although with the ever-popular shock-trooper/leap attack feat combo, I'd guess that regarding damage, the theoretical power attack nerf wouldn't affect melee characters too much except at the lower levels.

As for making melee good enough generally compared to spellcasters, that's a lot harder, because of the many spells that don't need to hit or even to roll a saving throw. Only nerfing or outright banning can help here. There's just too many of them, unfortunately.

[Darth Stabber]

My ideal solution is to ban tier 1 classes, and move other classes to take their place RP wise. Favored soul takes over for cleric, Normal Psion Takes over for wizard. Moves everything down a teir.

[Asheram]

- Either stronger shields, or shield bonuses that scale with level (+1 shield bonus when using a shield for every 2/3/4 BAB?). A Heavy Shield is almost worth something at level 1, but by as early as level 3 the AC is meaningless when compared to the potential bonus damage from a 2H, and doubly meaningless considering how quickly attack scales upwards.

A little thought... What if we did something like that?

Just playing with a five-minute thought here, folk. Please don't call me crazy.
What if we made so that

bucklers give you +½ ac every 4 BaB.
AC+1 shields give you +1 ac every 4 BaB
AC+2 shields give you +1 ac every 2 BaB
AC+3 shields give you +1½ (rounded down) ac every 2 BaB
AC+4 shields give you +1 ac every 1 BaB

where AC+N is the original bonus from the type of shield.

[GoatBoy]

Characters using a shield may substitute their Combat Manoeuver Defence (BAB+Str+Dex) for their AC against one attack per round. "Combat Blocker" feat raises this to your Dex mod times per round.

When you are full attacked while wielding a shield, a creature that misses you suffers an attack penalty on/loses the rest of its attacks.

When wielding a shield, you can treat a one-handed weapon as being wielded with both hands until you are attacked at least once that round.

These are just suggestions off the top of my head.

[Jay R]

Get a large shield, wield it in two hands, give it shield spikes + Bashing + size increases, and power attack away with it. It feels a bit ridiculous, but no more than tripping everyone in sight with 15' of spiked metal chain.

Talhoffer described shield-only combat in the 1400s.

Go down about halfway:
http://www.kampaibudokai.org/DragonPreservationSociety/Talhoffer.php

[The Big Dice]

Talhoffer described shield-only combat in the 1400s.

Go down about halfway:
http://www.kampaibudokai.org/DragonPreservationSociety/Talhoffer.php

I've seen those shields being tried out by an expert on ancient weapon techniques, but I can't find a video of it.

IIRC, they were used specifically for judicial trials by combat, and only in Germany.

[JKTrickster]

Wouldn't fighting with shields be too offensive? Shield bashing is one thing but making the shield an actual weapon seems to go against the spirit of the S&B.

Or should I change this view, at least for DnD mechanics?