Why all the hate for the shield? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Answerer

2013-01-30, 09:35 PM

The shield isn't really the problem. A shield is a bit of nearly-free AC, a platform for powerful magic, plus there are some nifty feats for it if you want to be silly (I have a pretty cool double-shield dungeoncrasher for instance).

The problem is wielding a weapon in one hand, which you must do if you use a (non-animated, non-buckler) shield. Having a single, one-handed weapon destroys your potential damage output. You lose 50% of your Strength modifier to damage, and Power Attack goes from "good" to "lackluster" really fast when you don't have the 2:1 ratio. And one-handed weapons just about never have reach, and can be disarmed more easily, and... they just aren't good. Sadly.

And that means people don't use shields until they can get animated ones, and they only bother with the expense of an animated shield for the purposes of additional special abilities, which are only worthwhile when they're more cost efficient than adding those abilities to your armor.

ArcturusV

2013-01-30, 09:36 PM

The reason they hate it is basically that it's "inefficient".

It's not just "Take improved Shield Bash". It's "Take improved Shield Bash, take two weapon fighting feat chain, take things to improve the use of... oh nuts I'm already out of feats".

The idea in general is that using a two handed weapon has a lot of innate bonuses you DON'T have to spend feats on. Like an extra +50% Strength Bonus to damage. Or a more favorable Power Attack trade.

Shields don't really get any innate bonus like that. Just the small, fixed, AC bonus. Which isn't that big a deal as you move away from Level 1 (where every AC point matters a lot and most any weapon can easily dispatch any foe anyway so the two hander bonuses aren't as necessary).

frost890

2013-01-30, 09:41 PM

That's at least half a catgirl down.

Then find a cleric, she isnt dead yet.

With shield spikes it could take care of one damage type(piercing) and if you hit with the side you can still do bashing. with a sword you have all types covered. and you dont have to draw another weapon.

Tar Palantir

2013-01-30, 09:47 PM

Then find a cleric, she isnt dead yet.

With shield spikes it could take care of one damage type(piercing) and if you hit with the side you can still do bashing. with a sword you have all types covered. and you dont have to draw another weapon.

But the main thing you need different damage types for is DR, and if you're two handing you can just power through and still end up ahead compared to the one-hander. For the occasional oddball thing like an ooze, swapping weapons isn't a huge deal; certainly not compared to the bonuses for just two-handing.

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-30, 09:51 PM

You get to fight like they realistically did in history as well.

That would be great in a setting more grounded in realism.

ArcturusV

2013-01-30, 09:54 PM

You know... I've seen enough weapon topics lately that the more I think about it, the more I want to go and homebrew a bunch of simple changes to make the choice of Weapon and Combat style a little more interesting. Not by nerfing the superior one, just by options and nifty stuff to the rest.

Lans

2013-01-30, 10:13 PM

If you bash with your shield your doing 1d6 less than if you hit him with a greatsword. They are not that bad. Add in the bashing quality and they deal the same amount of damageThe problem is trying to use that pointy thing with your shield. I mean really what are you thinking?

Dienekes

2013-01-30, 10:16 PM

A shield can be very useful, at low levels where the cost is next to nothing, the high damage feat chains haven't come into play yet, and your AC is at a pretty decent pace with the enemy attack bonus so any boost helps.

If that same paradigm ran throughout the rest of the game shields would be great. Unfortunately at higher levels every other option (except einhander) is just better at dealing damage, and since attack bonus does outpace AC the boost from a shield gets less and less useful as time goes on the best defense actually does become the best offense, which is almost universally using a THW.

But let it be known, I don't hate shields, quite the contrary. Shields are awesome and incredibly useful, in real life. The math just doesn't work for them in the game.

andromax

2013-01-30, 10:32 PM

Yeah, theres really just not enough good feats for shield bashing. With oversized two-weapon fighting it's so-so at low level, IF you like the flavor. It's strictly inferior to improved-buckler defense and THF, where you get an AC bonus & bigger damage.

Some things that would make shield bashing better is taking Agile Shield Fighter (PHII). It lets you shield bash counting your shield as a light weapon.

The only problem with this, is that it is a dead end because you can never gain iteratives with it, and you have to make a seperate attack (at a penalty) to deal damage you would have otherwise done if you were just using a Jovar. This would be OK if shield bashing inflicted some sort of status effect like increased chance to interrupt spell casting, daze, knockdown, etc. But the feats that grant this only do so on a charge, which can be situational rather than a reliable tactic for a defensive character.

Shield of the Severed Hand has a nice reactive bullrush ability but it's a relic and has it's own prereqs.

It's sad, b/c I love the idea of sword and board. If you need the AC you're better off with a tower shield which you can't bash with.

Urpriest

2013-01-30, 10:35 PM

JaronK

2013-01-30, 11:17 PM

If you want an optimized shield user, that's exactly what you do. Shield Charge + Shield Slam + Improved Trip and Knockback results in a very powerful charger that can debilitate and kill almost anything it can charge.

JaronK

Cog

2013-01-30, 11:27 PM

Are you suggesting two-handing a shield? It's a bit dubious, but I've heard it suggested before.
For what it's worth, two-handing a Heavy shield is entirely legal. Think of it as using your other arm to brace yourself, perhaps?

Grod_The_Giant

2013-01-30, 11:48 PM

With shield spikes it could take care of one damage type(piercing) and if you hit with the side you can still do bashing. with a sword you have all types covered. and you dont have to draw another weapon.

The number of things with DR/(damage type) is quite low. (Skeletons, liches, and what else?)

As others have said, it's not that shields are in and of themselves bad, it's that two-handed weapons are overwhelmingly more effective from a mechanical point-of-view. Even two-weapon fighting gets more love than shields. It's possible to be effective with a shield, but it's a lot harder than just picking up a greatsword and power attack.

navar100

2013-01-31, 12:56 AM

For fighters, rangers, and barbarians the shield doesn't help much. Fighters and barbarians get more mileage out of two-handed weapons and rangers use two-weapons or bows.

The paladin can go either way. Those who like to be more on offense will go the two-handed route. Those looking for style work on shield-bashing. Those who are more defensive use the shield. Two-handed reach helps on the defense as well, but some people don't want such a feat dedication. Paladins tend not to have the necessary Dex for efficient use of Combat Reflexes and feats that build on it. They are happy enough with a long sword and shield and let buffs do the work. It's easier in Pathfinder where their Smite Evil packs a punch worthy of the name and Power Attack is friendly to sword & shield style.

The cleric uses the shield. If he's not a warrior type, every point of AC helps and he's not looking for combat damage. As a warrior type, his own buff spells provide good enough damage to not need a two-handed weapon since he's not power attacking anyway. Might as well have the AC, and Magic Vestment to both armor and shield is a big help as an option.

Rubik

2013-01-31, 01:01 AM

The paladin can go either way. Those who like to be more on offense will go the two-handed route. Those looking for style work on shield-bashing. Those who are more defensive use the shield. Two-handed reach helps on the defense as well, but some people don't want such a feat dedication. Paladins tend not to have the necessary Dex for efficient use of Combat Reflexes and feats that build on it. They are happy enough with a long sword and shield and let buffs do the work. It's easier in Pathfinder where their Smite Evil packs a punch worthy of the name and Power Attack is friendly to sword & shield style.

The cleric uses the shield. If he's not a warrior type, every point of AC helps and he's not looking for combat damage. As a warrior type, his own buff spells provide good enough damage to not need a two-handed weapon since he's not power attacking anyway. Might as well have the AC, and Magic Vestment to both armor and shield is a big help as an option.Part of the problem with both paladins and clerics is that they need a spare hand to cast spells.

You can't do that with a shield unless you drop your weapon.

dspeyer

2013-01-31, 02:04 AM

The reason that shields make sense in real life and not in dnd is that real life class levels don't grant hit points. One solid longsword stabbing is enough to kill even the most skilled real-world fighter. Making that stab connect is the hard part. In dnd, there's a huge need to optimize damage that doesn't shape real-world fighting styles.

If knights spent their time dueling polar bears, they might have adopted different tactics. But nobody gets into melee with bears. They keep a distance and wear them down with arrows.

Darius Kane

2013-01-31, 03:05 AM

Part of the problem with both paladins and clerics is that they need a spare hand to cast spells.

You can't do that with a shield unless you drop your weapon.
Somatic Weaponry.
And not all spells have somatic components.

Greenish

2013-01-31, 03:17 AM

The reason that shields make sense in real life and not in dnd is that real life class levels don't grant hit points.Or maybe that people in real life just don't have that many levels, if you want to look at it that way.

At lowest levels, as has been said, shields are quite useful.

TypoNinja

2013-01-31, 03:28 AM

Its a problem most games, table top and computer have.

The damage output you give up from not two handing (or TWF) is so vast compared to the fairly minor boosts in defensive ability.

Its an extension of the philosophy that spawned the attitude that your cleric is not a healer. The best way to win is to kill it first, not to try and minimize incoming damage.

Stront

2013-01-31, 04:25 AM

I am a big fan of the Divine Shield feat out of CW.

MukkTB

2013-01-31, 05:08 AM

You can't use a shield when power attacking. You can't use a shield two weapon fighting unless you dump another feat on a build that already requires a ton. Hitting one handed results in a piddling amount of damage. Without feats or much else in play you probably average 8.5 damage on a hit. A lvl 1 raging power attacking barbarian (18 STR) with a greatsword will hit for maybe 16 damage but only 11.5 with a longsword.

So you need extra damage. However sneak attack is better on two weapon fighting. The same goes for favored enemy or that thing that scouts get. A level 1 sneak attack dual wielding rogue (14 STR 18 DEX) will hit for maybe 16 damage but only 9 with a single weapon. Additionally the shield AC is only really helpful at low levels. By mid level its better to go in for specific protections or miss chance. You have to work your AC very hard to keep it as a viable defense.

Lets assume you have 16 AC before you choose what to put in your hands. The aforesaid greatsword barbarian, given his hit chance will do an average damage of 8 to you (16 average damage on a hit, 50% chance to hit). The rogue will do 5.6 damage on an average turn. With a shield granting you 2 more AC up to 18 the average damage changes as follows: Barbarian - 6.4 Rogue - 4. What this means is that using your off hand to attack grants you roughly 50% more damage. Using your off hand to defend increases your effective hit points by around 33%. 50%>33%.

This is at level 1. It gets much better to use your off hand to attack as you level. On the other hand you do not become more skilled at using shields. The best you can do is buy bigger better shields. If some of your BAB applied to the shield's effectiveness they would be much more popular.

Out of all this mess the only fighters who might actually want to use a shield are the TOB classes. They get good single strikes with lots of bonus damage that aren't in and of themselves better when used with a 2 handed weapon or dual wielding. Of course the base chassis of the attack is still better as a power attacking greatsword than just a simple longsword.

Sword and board combat is a great deal more appealing if you're not a primary combatant. A low level 14 str cleric whose feats have gone to spellcasting will be happier giving up the greatsword for the extra AC. But when it comes to serious nonmagic combat, the shield just doesn't cut it.

MukkTB

2013-01-31, 07:23 AM

My posts kill threads. I am become death.

Yora

2013-01-31, 07:35 AM

In reality, shields are awesome. I thinking shield and no armor is a better protection than armor and no shield, unless you get to the level of plate armor.
In D&D, +1 and +2 to AC is a joke, especially when you consider that many high level optimizers think that AC becomes useless anyway, since high level enemies will almost always hit and there just aren't that many practical ways to get your AC high enough to actually protect you.

The AC bonus of shields needs at least to be doubled and also apply to Reflex saves against area effects. It also should be added to touch AC, electricity damage is the only thing in which hitting the shield would plausibly hurt the wielder.

Stront

2013-01-31, 07:55 AM

Gwendol

2013-01-31, 08:29 AM

I agree with Yora; the bonus for using a shield in this game is a joke, which is the main reason shields see so little use. Light armor + dastana is a good route though.

Acanous

2013-01-31, 09:09 AM

Two handing a shield is entirely legal and real-world supported. Shield bashing, in partcular, often had you grabbing your shield with both hands and SLAMMING it into your opponent, edge-first to the head.
That's how they got "Hit by a car" levels of impact damage.

It is entirely useful to have a buckler in D&D. The shield bonus may only apply to the first attack, but magic enhancements apply to everything. So all my characters get a buckler.

Tower shields are a thing reserved for tank classes. If my build is say, a mounted charger, I might have one, but for the most part it's there for Dwarven characters who apply CON to AC instead of DEX, clank around in full plate, and refuse to die to anything, ever.

Soon as you can have a shield animated, though, it becomes worth having again.

I like to fluff it that "Animated" shields actually stick to your forearm like a buckler, but support their own weight.

Story

2013-01-31, 09:11 AM

Tower Shields can also be useful if you aren't making attack rolls (summoner, AOEs, etc) so you don't care about proficiency.

Edit: I just remembered that sheilds count towards ASF. So I guess they're only good if you're Divine, or a Psion, or have some way of stilling all your spells.

Person_Man

2013-01-31, 10:17 AM

Reasons why people don't use shields:

They haven't read the Guide to Shields (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630) [/shameless plug]
The Animated shield enhancement exists, in the core rules, and is relatively cheap.
They prefer higher damage.
Shields are not reach weapons, and thus make it difficult to use many attack of opportunity combos. Stopping (and hopefully damaging) an enemy 5 feet away from you with a Trip (or Bull Rush, or Stand Still, etc) is superior to a minor AC bonus.
You must waste a Feat on Shield Bash in order to use a shield as a weapon while retaining the AC bonus, and waste even more Feats on Agile Shield Fighter or the Two Weapon Fighting tree if you want to use it with another weapon.

Reasons why people might want to consider using shields:

Power Attack combos really don't kick in ECL 6, when you have access to Shock Trooper or Leap Attack and have enough BAB to make it worth while. So at ECL 1-5, you're probably better off with the extra AC instead of the extra damage if you're not using an attack of opportunity combo that requires reach.
Attack of opportunity combos generally require 14+ Dexterity, Combat Reflexes, and usually 1-3 other Feats (or more), and you have to deal with the whole reach weapon "donut" issue. If you don't have that
You do not need to use a shield with another weapon. Like all one handed weapons, you can fight with a shield two handed. Thus you can have your AC bonus and the superior damage of two handed fighting together.
If you're doing something other then hitting enemies with a melee weapon (spells, powers, vestiges, soulmelds, etc) most rounds, you're really not losing anything by using a shield, other then the aforementioned attack of opportunity option.
If you wanted to, you can carry and use two shields, which is useful for a few niche combos.
You can use a lance with one hand if carrying a shield, which is useful for certain niche builds. (Though I prefer using a lance two handed. If you're using a charge combo, might as well use it correctly).
There are a few worthwhile shield Feats. Divine Shield for Cha to AC, Inlindl School to sacrifice your shield bonus to AC to gain 1/2 that bonus To-Hit with any light or Weapon Finesse-able weapon, Shield Slam for a Daze effect, plus some useful shield buffing spells, maneuvers, and class abilities.

Scow2

2013-01-31, 11:54 AM

I think part of the problem with shields is that they don't scale, despite being something that takes a whole hand to use.

Honestly - I think a non-animated shield should add half the user's Strength Modifier to AC. Tying shield ability to strenght would be a great mechanical change from a thematic standpoint as well, encouraging Shields to be used viably by those with a great physical strength, such as Barbarians and other mighty heroes (Vikings and Greeks, anyone?)

nedz

2013-01-31, 12:00 PM

I think adding shield AC to touch AC not only makes sense but would greatly increase the effectiveness of shields. Think this became a new house rule for me.

There's a feat for that: Shield Ward PHII

ArcturusV

2013-01-31, 12:03 PM

Or rather tie it to BAB. Heavy Shields get +1 AC for every 3 BAB (minimum 2). Light Shields get +1 AC for every 4 BAB (minimum 1). Bucklers get +1 AC for every 5 BAB (minimum 1).

Story

2013-01-31, 12:05 PM

If you wanted to, you can carry and use two shields, which is useful for a few niche combos.

But the AC bonuses don't stack, so why bother?

Lans

2013-01-31, 12:29 PM

But the AC bonuses don't stack, so why bother?

If your TWF a heavy spiked bashing shield has the highest damage of one handed weapons. It gives you an extra slot to put crystals, and other enhancements onto.

Answerer

2013-01-31, 01:04 PM

But the AC bonuses don't stack, so why bother?
Because you have Agile Shield Fighter and are using the shields as weapons. They can be surprisingly good at that. If my 6th-level dungeoncrasher can get somebody against a wall, he can attack at +11/+11/+6 (Str 24), each attack dealing 1d6+7, causing a Bull Rush due to Improved Shield Bash, which triggers Dungeoncrasher for 8d6+21 damage each.

strider24seven

2013-01-31, 01:07 PM

This might sound a bit silly but I have noticed that everyone seems to hate the shield on the forms. With the improved shield bash you can fight with it and keep the AC bonus with out spending all the loot to make it a magic floating shield. You get to fight like they realistically did in history as well. and a lot more cultures then just the Spartans used there shields as a weapon btw. So why don't I ever see someone bring it up when they talk about builds? what am I missing?

Because the Animated Shield exists.
So you can just grab a greatsword and swing away, and still get your +X to AC.

Person_Man

2013-01-31, 02:41 PM

But the AC bonuses don't stack, so why bother?

You wouldn't have to spend a Feat on Improved Shield Bash or TWF, because you can use one shield as a one handed weapon (that deals 2d6 damage if you have the cheap Bashing enhancement on it) and the other shield as a shield.

There are a few fairly useful magic shields, shield enhancements, special materials, and crystals out there, so being able to use two shields doubles the number you can use.

You could also enchant each with the Ranged enhancement, which gives each shield Throwing and Returning and a 30 ft range increment for the low cost of a +1 enhancement. So if you happen to be a low level TWF build that wants to always make a full attack every round (switching between melee and thrown weapons), this is the cheapest way to ensure you are always using your magically enchanted shields to attack.

gorfnab

2013-01-31, 07:41 PM

Pathfinder has a few options for Shield users. Phalanx Soldier Archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/phalanx-soldier), Shielded Fighter Archetype (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/shielded-fighter), Weapon and Shield Ranger Combat Style (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger)

Lonely Tylenol

2013-01-31, 08:06 PM

If, for whatever reason, the Animated property didn't exist, Shield is still a first-level spell. A command word item of Shield at-will is cheaper than a +2 Heavy Shield, and also protects against Magic Missiles, should it ever come up. Even a continuous item isn't that expensive later on, although at this point you're just better off getting an Animated Shield.

darkdragoon

2013-01-31, 11:32 PM

Shields have more than passable support. The thing is most of them don't really care if you are sword and board. Furthermore, as you get higher up you have more pressing issues than "do I want 2 or 3 more AC?"

Snowbluff

2013-02-01, 01:12 AM

Then find a cleric, she isnt dead yet.

...:smallconfused:

she isnt dead yet.
Dammit.

*loses interest. Walks off.*

VanIsleKnight

2013-02-01, 02:12 AM

I've an easier solution. There are different categories of armor, right? Light, medium, heavy. Why not apply the same thing to shields, and just actually incorporate more types and names of shields? There are a lot of different styles that saw use, and they had their own drawbacks and benefits. I think the Spartan's shield was the best of the bunch, if I recall, but they varied in design.

So this way you could have light, medium, and heavy shields that could give AC bonuses that ranged from +1 to +5 and possibly additional benefits like forming a wall of shields when adjacent to allies, or helped you in disarming spears or polearm weapons.

Heck, you could even make a shield that had a trigger and shot a crossbow bolt or gun shot(PF) out of the center of it. Which would be fun, flavourful, and useful.

I think that'd be a much simpler solution than trying to make new rules, just make more shields. Light, heavy, tower? Pfft. That's not nearly enough when there are 100+ different types of weapons and armours.

Talionis

2013-02-01, 08:37 AM

The problem is feat trees. The Shiel Feat trees are full of several unnecessary feats that offer no cost effective benefit. As said previously, usually also requires getting into the Two Weapon Fighting tree, which is generally considered worse than the Power Attack trees.

3.5 did a lot of this hosing all the mundane classes tying up decent abilities with tons of feats to get one decent trick. Then those mundane classes have to pick one feat tree because feats are so valuable to them and only the most powerful feats can get taken by mundanes to keep them relevant.

The bonuses from the Shield feats, just don't scale well and are not comparable to the other things you could be doing.

Tome of Battle helps a little with this because manevers often replicate effects from long feat trees like Whirlwind Attack tree and Mithral Tornado. ToB also helps because it places decent effects and damage on a single attack action. While Power Attack can still add damage, it doesn't get further multiplied by the iteratives, so your lower damage can be offset by the bonus effects you get from the maneuvers.

But, it's really a problem of 3.5 making feats too valuable and some feats almost mandatory, ie Power Attack. That's a pity because I hate just Power Attacking each round, I like more options.

I'm also very much like the appearance of Shields and wish 3.5 had supported them much better.

Pickford

2013-02-01, 02:16 PM

For what it's worth, two-handing a Heavy shield is entirely legal. Think of it as using your other arm to brace yourself, perhaps?

Except it's a one-handed weapon explicitly wielded on your offhand. So it always would get 1/2 strength bonus and can't be wielding two handed.

The benefit is that a heavy shield gives +2 AC, that's a 10% miss chance. You could enchant it to increase that as high as a heavy shield +5 (+7 AC) for a +35% miss chance increase....that's really not bad.

Some of the shield feats are pretty good, shield charge to get a free trip attack on a charge using your shield (no aoo, no return trip chance on failure) so if you land that not only would you have up to +35% miss, but they would get a further -4 to their melee attack (combined increased miss chance of 55% above and beyond whatever your armor and dodge bonuses give. If you have shield slam as well this also has a DC 10 +1/2lvl + str mod) to daze.

In either case you can take the shield specialization (PHBII) line to reduce twf penalties with a shield. (Agile Shield Fighter in particular lets you shield bash with a heavy shield as if you had twf and it was a light weapon)

Answerer

2013-02-01, 02:46 PM

Except it's a one-handed weapon explicitly wielded on your offhand. So it always would get 1/2 strength bonus and can't be wielding two handed.
"Offhand" status has no meaning unless you are using the two-weapon fighting combat maneuver. You are incorrect.

The benefit is that a heavy shield gives +2 AC, that's a 10% miss chance.
+2 AC is nothing like a 10% Miss Chance.

You could enchant it to increase that as high as a heavy shield +5 (+7 AC) for a +35% miss chance increase....that's really not bad.
Far too expensive for the cost.

Some of the shield feats are pretty good, shield charge to get a free trip attack on a charge using your shield (no aoo, no return trip chance on failure) so if you land that not only would you have up to +35% miss, but they would get a further -4 to their melee attack (combined increased miss chance of 55% above and beyond whatever your armor and dodge bonuses give. If you have shield slam as well this also has a DC 10 +1/2lvl + str mod) to daze.
You are still treating AC/attack numbers as far simpler than they actually are. The feats mentioned are OK enough, anyway.

In either case you can take the shield specialization (PHBII) line to reduce twf penalties with a shield. (Agile Shield Fighter in particular lets you shield bash with a heavy shield as if you had twf and it was a light weapon)
None of those feats except Agile Shield Fighter has anything to do with the TWF penalties. And most of them are utterly awful (including Shield Specialization itself). Shield Ward and Agile Shield Fighter are the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head from that line.

strider24seven

2013-02-01, 03:45 PM

And most of them are utterly awful (including Shield Specialization itself). Shield Ward and Agile Shield Fighter are the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head from that line.

QFT. Most shield-related feats are awful.
In fact, most AC-related feats are pretty aweful.

Most warrior types are better off with a greatsword of their choice and a +1 animated mithral heavy shield

Deepbluediver

2013-02-01, 03:54 PM

@OP

In general, shields are not great because defensive fighting styles are not that great. Its very hard to FORCE a creature to attack the shield-wielder instead of just rushing past him to smack the squishy wizard, and damage prevention via killing the enemy generally out-ranks damage prevention from AC boosts.

Also, most of the AC boosts for armor and shields are pretty "meh" at best. (not counting stuff like animated shield) There are any number of fixes floating around; mostly they boost the bonuses and/or reduce the penalties.

There's a feat for that: Shield Ward PHII

It shouldn't need a feat. A while back I had a thread with some improvements to basic armor, and as one poster put it "that's what shield do, they keep things from touching you".

Shield AC bonus applying to touch AC is now a house rule.

QFT. Most shield-related feats are awful.
In fact, most AC-related feats are pretty aweful.

I have a thread with some homebrewed feats for improving Sword n' Board combat, take a look if you want.

Link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14527298&postcount=2)

My posts kill threads. I am become death.

Yeah, I feel like that some times.

ericgrau

2013-02-01, 04:01 PM

Shocktrooper makes all styles besides THF obsolete. By getting rid of that obvious melee oversight (1/3rd of a feat to rule them all??) you're actually giving players more options rather than less options.

In moderate optimization when the front-liner's life is actually at risk, and where a one handed weapon poses almost as much threat as a two handed weapon, a shield is the best option. Though an animated shield and fighting with both hands is still better at higher levels.

+2 AC is nothing like a 10% Miss Chance.

True, statistically it's more like a 20-30% miss chance. But I know what you actually mean. In higher optimization touch attacks might be more common and then you lose any benefit. But otherwise +2 AC goes much farther than people think. When you get hit 8 out of 20 times instead of 10 out of 20, that +2 made 20% of them miss not 10%. That's why if you can trade only a little damage for a shield like you do in moderate optimization, it's easily worth it. At high levels you barely lose any damage regardless of optimization level but shocktrooper may make your AC unsalvageable.

Answerer

2013-02-01, 04:19 PM

Shocktrooper makes all styles besides THF obsolete. By getting rid of that obvious melee oversight (1/3rd of a feat to rule them all??) you're actually giving players more options rather than less options.
Actually, you're going from one (1) option to zero (0) options. As it turns out, 0 < 1.

True, statistically it's more like a 20-30% miss chance. But I know what you actually mean. In higher optimization touch attacks might be more common and then you lose any benefit. But otherwise +2 AC goes much farther than people think. When you get hit 8 out of 20 times instead of 10 out of 20, that +2 made 20% of them miss not 10%. That's why if you can trade only a little damage for a shield like you do in moderate optimization, it's easily worth it. At high levels you barely lose any damage regardless of optimization level but shocktrooper may make your AC unsalvageable.
None of this is relevant at all. I specifically capitalized Miss Chance to refer to the actual game term. Miss Chances are much better than AC, because you give your opponent a totally new roll to have a chance to miss.

Attempting to refer to AC bonuses by simple percentages without first defining initial AC and the attack bonus in question, is simply misleading and wrong. And any time you do choose initial AC and attack bonuses, you're restricting yourself to a single case which is not that useful.

At any rate, AC has diminishing returns and you get a huge wodge of it very cheaply. Investing heavily for more AC is not wise.

ericgrau

2013-02-01, 04:22 PM

Getting a new roll is mathematically much worse than increasing the chance of the first roll by the same amount...

Greenish

2013-02-01, 04:25 PM

In moderate optimization when the front-liner's life is actually at risk, and where a one handed weapon poses almost as much threat as a two handed weapon, a shield is the best option.Well, I wouldn't count reach weapons out yet.

strider24seven

2013-02-01, 04:31 PM

Getting a new roll is mathematically much worse than increasing the chance of the first roll by the same amount...

Which would matter if there weren't so many methods of assault that flat-out ignore AC (especially non-touch AC) that are not stopped by Miss Chance and/or Concealment.

Hand_of_Vecna

2013-02-01, 05:43 PM

You wouldn't have to spend a Feat on Improved Shield Bash or TWF, because you can use one shield as a one handed weapon (that deals 2d6 damage if you have the cheap Bashing enhancement on it) and the other shield as a shield.

As hilarious as this image is, wouldn't getting improved shield bash so you can two-hand the shield be better? If you want extra items for stacking passive weapon/shield effects, you could always equip a spiked buckler on the other hand and never gain a mechanical effect from it. Maybe make it out of a special material just in case.

Can you choose not to use the spikes on a shield bash?

Answerer

2013-02-01, 05:49 PM

Getting a new roll is mathematically much worse than increasing the chance of the first roll by the same amount...
Hmm, you are right on that. However, there is this:

Which would matter if there weren't so many methods of assault that flat-out ignore AC (especially non-touch AC) that are not stopped by Miss Chance and/or Concealment.And also, more relevantly, it's much easier to get stacking miss chances than it is to get similarly-large bonuses to AC, and there's the 5% minimum on AC that miss chances don't have.

Xerxus

2013-02-01, 06:33 PM

None of this is relevant at all. I specifically capitalized Miss Chance to refer to the actual game term. Miss Chances are much better than AC, because you give your opponent a totally new roll to have a chance to miss.

Attempting to refer to AC bonuses by simple percentages without first defining initial AC and the attack bonus in question, is simply misleading and wrong. And any time you do choose initial AC and attack bonuses, you're restricting yourself to a single case which is not that useful.

At any rate, AC has diminishing returns and you get a huge wodge of it very cheaply. Investing heavily for more AC is not wise.

Improved Precise Shot.

Pickford

2013-02-01, 08:30 PM

"Offhand" status has no meaning unless you are using the two-weapon fighting combat maneuver. You are incorrect.

If you're fighting with a shield it is, by definition, strapped to your offhand. You cannot dual-wield shields. From the PHB: "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield using it as an off-hand weapon."

Nothing about using it mainhand or two-handed. Offhand attacks use 1/2 Strength. I am completely correct. For that matter one could not be more correct. Next time you want to call something out get actual evidence rather than a poor gut check.

+2 AC is nothing like a 10% Miss Chance.

1/20 is 5%, 2/20 is a 10% miss chance. Any improvement of your AC by 2 points increases the chance of an attack missing by 10% unless you already hit or miss on all rolls.

Far too expensive for the cost.

It's just 50,157gp for a heavy wooden shield (+13 gp to make it steel).

You are still treating AC/attack numbers as far simpler than they actually are. The feats mentioned are OK enough, anyway.

It's simple d20 probability.

None of those feats except Agile Shield Fighter has anything to do with the TWF penalties. And most of them are utterly awful (including Shield Specialization itself). Shield Ward and Agile Shield Fighter are the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head from that line.

Shield specialization is an extra 5% not to get hit, defense is hard enough to acquire that that is fanstastic.

Edit:

And also, more relevantly, it's much easier to get stacking miss chances than it is to get similarly-large bonuses to AC, and there's the 5% minimum on AC that miss chances don't have

Capital 'M' Miss Chances don't stack. PHB 152: "Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack."

ArcturusV

2013-02-01, 08:41 PM

Lord_Gareth

2013-02-01, 08:42 PM

Nah. +2 AC is 10%... when you're talking about a zero BAB and having 10 AC without the shield.

But say the target has +20 BAB, and you have 18 AC, plus 2 AC from the shield.

That is not 10% reduction in the chance to hit. That is what Answerer was getting at. In that the 2 AC have zero effect at all on the opponent's chance to hit. The only miss chance they have (without capitals) is a Crit Failure.

Plus there's things like touch spells; you need to invest a feat for shields to help with those, but Displacement works out the gate.

Pickford

2013-02-01, 08:44 PM

Nah. +2 AC is 10%... when you're talking about a zero BAB and having 10 AC without the shield.

But say the target has +20 BAB, and you have 18 AC, plus 2 AC from the shield.

That is not 10% reduction in the chance to hit. That is what Answerer was getting at. In that the 2 AC have zero effect at all on the opponent's chance to hit. The only miss chance they have (without capitals) is a Crit Failure.

Yeah, but in most circumstances hit chance for each attack after the first is drastically reduced and that +2 AC can make the difference between them hitting you with everything and them missing with all but the first.

Edit: Gareth, true, but doesn't displacement cost a fighter alot more than 20gp out of the gate?

ZeroNumerous

2013-02-01, 08:47 PM

It also should be added to touch AC, electricity damage is the only thing in which hitting the shield would plausibly hurt the wielder.

Convection? What's that? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConvectionSchmonvection) Fireballs? Psh. Shouldn't heat the air around the shield at all.

Aliek

2013-02-01, 08:53 PM

Also, I believe sonic damage ignored an object's hardness...

Deepbluediver

2013-02-01, 08:56 PM

It also should be added to touch AC, electricity damage is the only thing in which hitting the shield would plausibly hurt the wielder.

Why? And if you say "metal conducts electricity" my next question is "what about wooden shields?

Convection? What's that? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConvectionSchmonvection) Fireballs? Psh. Shouldn't heat the air around the shield at all.

What, you've never heard of a heat shield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield)? :smallbiggrin:

The point is, if something is aimed at you, why can't you direct it away from you with a shield just like any other attack? Or use a shield to lower it's effective penetration/damage?

If you had way to much time, you could probably go through the entire PHB and pick and choose what shields stop which spells, but for simplicity, if we just said shields add to touch AC, how much is that really going to change things?

Lord_Gareth

2013-02-01, 09:27 PM

Edit: Gareth, true, but doesn't displacement cost a fighter alot more than 20gp out of the gate?

A cloak of minor displacement is a bit more expensive than a mundane shield, but it's also the gift that just keeps on giving and giving and giving.

Tvtyrant

2013-02-01, 09:55 PM

My posts kill threads. I am become death.

This happens to me on a daily basis :P

2Cs: I always wanted to use an animated Object as a shield, and have it wear a ring of Friend Shield. Alas it never happened...

Pickford

2013-02-01, 11:13 PM

A cloak of minor displacement is a bit more expensive than a mundane shield, but it's also the gift that just keeps on giving and giving and giving.

Ahem...you could have 'both'. :smalltongue:

ZeroNumerous

2013-02-01, 11:14 PM

The point is, if something is aimed at you, why can't you direct it away from you with a shield just like any other attack? Or use a shield to lower it's effective penetration/damage?

Because a fireball is a 20ft wide plume of magical flame. Sure, you stop the fire, but convection heats the air around your shield and burns you anyway. Whether you have the shield or not is irrelevant, because fire does not work based solely on contact.

Arguments can be made for acid-, cold-, sonic-, and force-based abilities as well.

If you had way to much time, you could probably go through the entire PHB and pick and choose what shields stop which spells, but for simplicity, if we just said shields add to touch AC, how much is that really going to change things?

Nothing, but not for the reasons you think.

You could triple the AC on shields, make them apply to touch attacks, and shields would still be relegated to nothing but animated/floating shields. Why? Because two-hand fighting is substantially more efficient damage-wise vs one-handed fighting, and there is no incentive to use a sword-and-board style instead of a spiked chain plus floating shield style.

The sole exception is that you're explicitly going for a Captain America who two-hands his shield, but then you're just making a two-handed fighter use a shield instead of a spiked chain.

What about removing animated/floating enchantments for shields? Then no one is using one past level 7 or 8 except for maybe the wizard because he can get one mithril'd up to not interfere with his spellcasting. Why? Because using a two-hander and killing the enemy before they kill you is more efficient than trying to weather enemy attacks from an optimization stand-point.

In short: As long as one-handed fighting is weak and the animated shield ability is available, then no one will be using sword-and-board. Two-handing with a floating shield gives you all the benefits of a shield, and none of the pesky "I can't use two-hands" problems.

Flickerdart

2013-02-01, 11:31 PM

3.5 rewards offense over defense. What good are those extra points of AC when the monster you're fighting gets twice as many rounds to attack you, because you've halved your damage, or when it picks you up and eats you, or when it turns the ground under your feet into lava, or when it sets the air on fire, makes your blood boil, crushes your mind into a tiny acorn, or swarms around you? The only reliable option melee has of countering all of those things is swording the monster to death before it can do any of them. A shield, which gives a small bonus to one kind of defense, just gets in the way of that.

Greenish

2013-02-01, 11:44 PM

Because a fireball is a 20ft wide plume of magical flame. Sure, you stop the fire, but convection heats the air around your shield and burns you anyway. Whether you have the shield or not is irrelevant, because fire does not work based solely on contact.Well, it's not like fireball has anything to do with shield bonus to touch AC.

Of interest to people wanting to make a sword-and-board character, EWM can get you the 1:2 PA returns with an one-hander. Since that requires using an exotic weapon anyway, go ahead and invest on Spinning Sword (SoS, one-handed reach weapon). It's a bigger investment than two-handers have to make, but it should be adequate for most games.

Deepbluediver

2013-02-02, 01:21 AM

Because a fireball is a 20ft wide plume of magical flame. Sure, you stop the fire, but convection heats the air around your shield and burns you anyway. Whether you have the shield or not is irrelevant, because fire does not work based solely on contact.

Arguments can be made for acid-, cold-, sonic-, and force-based abilities as well.

What spell(s) specifically, are you thinking of? Neither Burning Hands nor Fireball require attack rolls to hit a target. But a spell like Searing Ray, which going by the description is more like a laser, does. Why shouldn't I be able to deflect or block that kind of concentrated beam with a shield?

hymer

2013-02-02, 03:22 AM

@ ZeroNumerous: I can't help feeling you're being a little unconstructive there.
Sure, convection is a problem. In the real world anyway. As you say, we're talking magical flame. Something you can halve the effect of if you're quick. If you're real quick, you can ignore it entirely, despite it going off all the way around you. And there's little risk of it setting the map in your hand on fire. On the other hand, if you wear a suit of nearly ice cold metal, the fire hurts you just as much as if you didn't - and instantly.
In such a situation, a shield might help considerably, because nothing makes sense anyway. It would at least be cinematic, which argueably is a lot more important than it being realistic.

As for your analysis on offense vs. defence and the onehanded style, I generally agree. Though in a large party, there's no real harm in having someone play a defensive specialist. It can save the casters' actions and resources on summons to do something more active if the cleric just walks into the room first and shrugs off whatever they throw at him, and then opens up with his own spells. It's not always so hard to force the enemy to focus fire on your strongest defender.

Answerer

2013-02-02, 11:10 AM

If you're fighting with a shield it is, by definition, strapped to your offhand.
Meaningless term that doesn't actually have a definition within the rules

You cannot dual-wield shields.
False.

From the PHB: "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield using it as an off-hand weapon."
Doesn't actually mean anything.

Nothing about using it mainhand or two-handed.
Unnecessary for there to be anything about using it as such, it is a one-handed weapon that may be wielded in two hands or alongside another one-handed or light weapon while using two-weapon fighting.

Offhand attacks use 1/2 Strength.
Only while using Two-Weapon Fighting.

I am completely correct.
No, you are completely incorrect and most of what you just said is based up on made-up rules for what an "offhand" is, since that's not a defined term anywhere at all.

For that matter one could not be more correct.
Well, one might if one were using the actual rules.

Next time you want to call something out get actual evidence rather than a poor gut check.
No, next time I'll remember that you feel the need to insist that the rules as Pickford pretends they read trumps the actual text in your mind, and ignore you.

1/20 is 5%, 2/20 is a 10% miss chance. Any improvement of your AC by 2 points increases the chance of an attack missing by 10% unless you already hit or miss on all rolls.
And miss chances apply to way more things than does AC.

It's just 50,157gp for a heavy wooden shield (+13 gp to make it steel).
Which is enormous for a mere AC bonus, no matter how large. For the same price you could have immunity to all death effects, negative energy, and energy drain.

It's simple d20 probability.
Still wrong.

Shield specialization is an extra 5% not to get hit, defense is hard enough to acquire that that is fanstastic.
That's not what AC is, and you should stop saying it is.

Capital 'M' Miss Chances don't stack. PHB 152: "Multiple concealment conditions (such as a defender in a fog and under the effect of a blur spell) do not stack."
That's multiple concealment conditions; there are other ways to have miss chances. For instance, mirror image.

Pickford

2013-02-02, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Pickford

From the PHB: "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield using it as an off-hand weapon."

Doesn't actually mean anything.

It means you take 1/2 str as a bonus. Since within the rules you always have a MH and an OH it also means you can't use a shield on your MH.

Sorry to destroy your hopes and dreams on that. You could always house-rule otherwise, but not if playing just RAW.

That's multiple concealment conditions; there are other ways to have miss chances. For instance, mirror image.

"miss chance: The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location. See concealment"

"concealment: Something that prevents an attacker from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance)."

And yes, Mirror image works because it doesn't, strictly speaking, offer a miss chance. You determine if the target chosen is real or not 'before' making an attack. Concealment is rolled for 'after' a "hit" is landed.

But obviously you're well read so this was not a surprise to you. And yes rolling a d20 there is a 5% chance you get any given number. As such any AC modifier or attack bonus bumps the chance of landing a blow on an attack roll by 5% per number. That is how probability works on single rolls.

Edit:

Which is enormous for a mere AC bonus, no matter how large. For the same price you could have immunity to all death effects, negative energy, and energy drain.

I suppose the utility of those 3 abilities only matters if you're fighting alot of undead/necromancers. If not you just wasted the gold.

Answerer

2013-02-02, 12:44 PM

It means you take 1/2 str as a bonus. Since within the rules you always have a MH and an OH it also means you can't use a shield on your MH.
Nooooope. Both phrases are used only within Two-Weapon Fighting, and do not hold any meaning anywhere else.

Moreover, even if it did, the rule you keep quoting says you can use as an offhand weapon. But it's still a martial one-handed weapon, and no rule says you can't use it as one.

"miss chance: The possibility that a successful attack roll misses anyway because of the attacker's uncertainty about the target's location. See concealment"

"concealment: Something that prevents an attacker from clearly seeing his or her target. Concealment creates a chance that an otherwise successful attack misses (a miss chance)."

And yes, Mirror image works because it doesn't, strictly speaking, offer a miss chance. You determine if the target chosen is real or not 'before' making an attack. Concealment is rolled for 'after' a "hit" is landed.

But obviously you're well read so this was not a surprise to you. And yes rolling a d20 there is a 5% chance you get any given number. As such any AC modifier or attack bonus bumps the chance of landing a blow on an attack roll by 5% per number. That is how probability works on single rolls.
Concealment is the typical method of gaining a miss chance, yes. Nothing you've quoted makes the two equivalent.

I suppose the utility of those 3 abilities only matters if you're fighting alot of undead/necromancers. If not you just wasted the gold.
Necromancers or the undead, or well anyone who realizes how crippling negative levels are.

Raimun

2013-02-02, 12:59 PM

D&D is a game of heroic fantasy. That means you have a big two-hander and no helmet or a shield. It's not supposed to be realistic or reasonable.

However, if you really need it to make some sense, think about it this way. If you are a warrior and you have to slay huge monsters, such as dragons, do you take a big sword or a sword and shield to the job?

Any protection the shield might offer you against a dragon the size of a truck is mere illusion. Its fiery breath hits you anyway and the beast can smash your shield in one blow.

You have a better chance if you go with a good offense. You need big weapons to kill big monsters. Also, big weapons work equally well against smaller foes.

You have to remember that any "real life" weapon trivia is basically moot anyway. Medieval knights and samurai fought only fellow humans. Not monsters the size of houses. Edit:... And the best knight in the world couldn't win a bear in a fist fight.

lsfreak

2013-02-02, 01:04 PM

Nooooope. Both phrases are used only within Two-Weapon Fighting, and do not hold any meaning anywhere else.

And just to clarify/build off this, offhand only has meaning while you're actively gaining the bonus attacks from TWF. If you have two weapons, you can fight with both and both are mainhand, by using your bonus attacks from another source (BAB/haste/whatever). You can TWF and use your strong-hand weapon as your mainhand and your weak-hand weapon as you offhand, and the next round do exactly the opposite. You can TWF and have your weak-hand weapon your mainhand and your armor spikes as offhand and not use your main weapon at all.

So if you take the shield bashing entry as rules rather than description, you can never use a shield to attack unless a) you're actively gaining the benefits of TWF and b) you're using it as an offhand, that is, for the bonus attacks through TWF and never for attacks gained through haste/BAB/anything else.

Greenish

2013-02-02, 01:43 PM

From the PHB: "Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield using it as an off-hand weapon."For what it's worth, the FAQ addresses this, and says there's no reason why you couldn't use a shield as the main weapon. Now, FAQ is not RAW, and isn't always on the ball, but I think here their reading is neither totally wrong nor broken.

ShneekeyTheLost

2013-02-02, 04:54 PM

AC versus Miss Chance...

The concept that each +1 of AC is equal to 5% of miss chance, due to the fact that the attack roll is a d20 has plenty of problems with it.

First, this assumes the attack roll is low enough that AC is actually relevant. This is rarely the case. It's FAR easier to get extra attack bonus than it is to get AC bonus, meaning AC quickly gets out-stripped, even WITHOUT Shock Trooper (which is useful primarily because it trades something worthless, i.e. AC, and gives you something useful for it).

Second, it assumes the AC is actually relevant. Touch attacks et al ignore it anyways.

Third, miss chance is a seperate roll, meaning your opponent now has TWO chances of not actually hitting you after all. So first you have the 5% chance of your opponent rolling a natural 1 on their attack roll and missing you due to AC, which 3-5 AC isn't going to really affect after about level 5, THEN you have your actual miss chance. More chances of missing is more better!

This is why I tend to focus on damage mitigation rather than avoidance for any 'tank' build I have. Which, actually, brings up an actually VALID use for shields... Ironsoul Forgemaster.

Cute little PrC, for each essentia invested in your shield, you get Energy Resistance (all five major flavors). Keeping it capped out basically means ignoring blastomancy or other energy-based damage output. The catch is that it only works with shields.

DR is fun, but generally of limited value. Fast healing is more valuable, but harder to get hold of. Crusader is good at it, though.

But really, the best method of protecting yourself is not allowing your opponent to make an attack roll in the first place. Either having a longer reach (spiked chain + augmented Expansion), or having a party member with Battlefield Control. With spells like Glitterdust, you get a 50% miss chance, assuming your opponent even knows what square you are in. Stinking Cloud is pretty much Fort Save or Game Over. Since you don't have to worry about AC or any of that nonsense, you can quite easily go Shock Trooper/Leap Attack/Valorous Weapon and one-shot-kill anything you are going to come across before they get UN-nauseated.

If you've got a DFA in the party, you'll almost never be hit in combat, as long as he took Entangling Exhalation.

These are far surer methods of not being hit than trying to rely on AC.

nedz

2013-02-02, 05:17 PM

ManInOrange

2013-02-03, 03:41 AM

For anyone who actually cares about the statistics for statistics' sake:

The difference between 10% miss chance and +2 to AC:

Setting aside the obvious difference by example for a moment...
Assuming the attacker's attack bonus +1 [A] is less than the defender's AC [D], and also assuming that A +20 > D, the attack roll actually means something. We'll start here.
1 - (D - A)/20 = chance of hitting
(Just to clarify:
[D] is the defender's AC
[A] is the attacker's bonus to hit + 1)

Situation 1:
If the defender has a straight 10% miss chance, we calculate the probability of the attacker both rolling such that he would normally hit and rolling in the 90% range to pass the miss chance. We want to find the conjunction of two probabilities, so we take their product:
(1 - (D - A)/20) * (9/10) = chance of hitting

Situation 2:
If the defender has a +2 to his AC from picking up a shield that's lying around, we simply put 2 + D into the equation"
1 - ((D + 2) - A)/20 = chance of hitting

Now, if we want a good look at the actual difference these make, we.... take the difference.

S1:
(1 - (D - A)/20) * (9/10) - (1 - (D - A)/20) =
(1 - (D - A)/20) * (-1/10)
Thus, the number of times the defender will be hit is 10% less than the number of times he would have been hit.

S2:
(D - A)/20 - ((D+2) - A)/20 =
(D - A)/20 - ((D - A) + 2)/20 =
(D - A)/20 - (D - A)/20 - 2/20 =
(-1/10)
Thus, the chances that the defender will be hit is now 10% less than the chances he would have been hit.

The difference between these should be obvious based on equations alone. In S1, the change is based on how often the defender would have been hit whereas in S2, it is not.

As for that example that I put off, imagine an AC of 6 and an attack bonus of 0. The chance of the defender being hit is 75%.
In S1, the chance of the defender being hit is:
(1 - (D - A)/20) * (9/10) = 75%*9/10 = 67.5%
In S2, the chance of the defender being hit is:
1 - ((D + 2) - A)/20 = 1 - (D - A)/20 - 2/20 = 75% - 10% = 65%

These are clearly not the same. In fact, the only situation in which the two equations are equal is specifically excluded by the 3.5 system, when D = A.

As for the case in which A +20 <= D, the chance of the defender being hit is 5%.
In S1, the chance is 5% * 90% = 4.5%
In S2, the chance is still 5%, since the attacker already only hits on a 20, and will still hit only on a 20 if D increases by 2.

As for the case in which A >= D, the chance of the defender being hit is 95%.
In S1, the chance is 95% * 90% = 85.5%
If A >= D + 2,
In S2, the chance will be 95%, as the attacker still only misses on a 1.
If A = D + 1
In S2, the chance will be 90%, as the attacker will now miss on a 1 and a 2.
If A = D
In S2, the chance will be 85%, as the attack will now miss on a 1, 2, or 3.

Summary:

With a 10% miss chance, you multiply the chances of hitting by (1-10%), whereas with a +2 to AC, you subtract 10% from the chances of hitting. They are not equivalent, are not equivalent for any attack bonus and any AC.

So, as for fixing the problem of the shields being underused... I very much like Yora's idea from page 1 or 2 of applying a shield bonus to touch AC. In fact, I like it so much, that's already how I run shields in my games.

However, if you really need it to make some sense, think about it this way. If you are a warrior and you have to slay huge monsters, such as dragons, do you take a big sword or a sword and shield to the job?

Any protection the shield might offer you against a dragon the size of a truck is mere illusion. Its fiery breath hits you anyway and the beast can smash your shield in one blow.

That may be the case with current mechanics, but if we're talking about making sense in the context of other fantasy, I'd disagree. When I picture a hero of old battling a dragon, I picture a sword and board fighter striking when he can, parrying the dragons teeth and claws as necessary, and hiding from its flame behind his sturdy shield. Your comment about smashing the shield is perfectly legitimate, however, as that is even part of what I'm imagining. It would at least force the dragon to actually care about getting rid of his defense.

My proposal is that, on successful reflex saves against cone and line attacks, (Arguments could be made for simply stating all AoE effects, but I'd like to limit it to the ones that make the most sense for now.) a fighter with a shield takes 1/4 damage instead of 1/2. It's certainly not overpowered, but it certainly makes a shield more useful.