[3.5] Increasing shield bonus of shields

[Phelix-Mu]

Was thinking of doing what it says in the title. Anyone tried this before? Does it sound like a good idea? I was thinking of increasing just light and heavy shields, and maybe tower shields. It just seems to me that if you are trained and actively trying to block attacks with a big breastplate-sized thing, then the proximal effect should be more beneficial.

[Flickerdart]

The classes that are proficient with shields usually have heavy armour proficiencies as well, which makes their AC pretty good already. If you want to improve shields, you need to make them give tactical options rather than merely more AC.

[Phelix-Mu]

The classes that are proficient with shields usually have heavy armour proficiencies as well, which makes their AC pretty good already. If you want to improve shields, you need to make them give tactical options rather than merely more AC.

You mean like some kind of bonus to Reflex saves or something? Should said tactical uses be passive, or are we talking in the manner of using the tower shield to give cover, shield bashing, etc?

I've considered using them to provide bonuses to reflex saves, which would be nice for clerics and fighter types that often have terrible reflex saves.

[Curmudgeon]

One house rule I use occasionally is to improve shield bonuses:

buckler: +2
light shield: +3
heavy shield +4
tower shield: +5
Of course, to keep this from just being a boost to spellcasters, the Animated shield property then changes from +2 cost to +4 cost. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

You mean like some kind of bonus to Reflex saves or something? Should said tactical uses be passive, or are we talking in the manner of using the tower shield to give cover, shield bashing, etc?

More active uses would be better, since reflex saves tend to be the least consequential in the game (oh, you take some more damage, big deal - the shield-using classes have huge HD and pump Constitution anyway). Cover would be a good start. Shield bashes with interesting effects (such as a bull rush with a bonus check, or knocking the enemy off balance before swording him through the neck) would be cool, too, since "do more damage" is something that's already easy.

[TuggyNE]

Of course, to keep this from just being a boost to spellcasters, the Animated shield property then changes from +2 cost to +4 cost. :smallwink:

I'd thought Animated was best for THFers; you still get ASF on it, after all.

[Fyermind]

Immediate action cover against a single attack from heavy shields, total cover from tower shields and partial cover (+2 ac, +1 ref) from light shields would be a reasonable feat with a prerequisite of BAB +4. Call it shield focus or something. Give it an advancement with dodge as a prerequisite saying that you can sustain that without action against the target of your dodge feat noting that they get the same cover relative to you that you get relative to them. I'd use shield more then.

[Slipperychicken]

Immediate action [...] total cover from tower shields

1/round Wings of Cover, then?

[Gwendol]

Protect vs touch is both logical and powerful.

[JusticeZero]

My only question is how to make the smaller, more advanced shields and bucklers a good option next to the primitive and outmoded large shields.

[Xerxus]

Tower Shield never gets enough love. The whole standard action for total cover is fine, but that +2 AC usually isn't worth -2 to hit. There should be some other - not unequivocally good - benefit in there. Maybe a built-in shield wall bonus for when two or more tower shield users are next to each other.

[Siosilvar]

My only question is how to make the smaller, more advanced shields and bucklers a good option next to the primitive and outmoded large shields.

I've considered before making smaller shields (or no shield) a requirement for adding Dex to AC, but it screws with the game's math too much as it stands. They could let you add it twice, I suppose, but then you've got to increase heavy shield AC to about +4-+5 to make it a decent option (and tower shields even more), and everything starts getting out of whack.

Maybe in combination with a the "half armor AC is DR" rule from Unearthed Arcana.

[Curmudgeon]

I'd thought Animated was best for THFers; you still get ASF on it, after all.
So? If you're a Druid or Cleric you don't care about that. :smallbiggrin: Also, various construction techniques can reduce 15% ASF down to 0% instead, opening up heavy shields to arcane casters as well as the divine types. Seriously, Animated is used at least as much by spellcasters as martial types, just because it has no time limit. That means it's protecting them during surprise rounds, and doesn't suck up a standard action the way casting Shield would. Martial characters need to spend money on weapons and armor, whereas spellcasters have lesser needs in those areas; consequently, the casters will usually be able to afford an Animated shield before the THF characters.

While it looks like a boon to THF characters, Animated is actually another power-up for spellcasters.

[mikethepoor]

My only question is how to make the smaller, more advanced shields and bucklers a good option next to the primitive and outmoded large shields.

To some extent, there's already a trade-off in the system. Large shields explicitly say you can't use your shield arm for anything else. Small ones say you can use non-weapon objects but not weapons with that arm, and bucklers still let you use a weapon. How much of a bonus/penalty this really is, of course, depends on your playstyle.

[molten_dragon]

I've toyed with the idea of making shield use a more active thing. Instead of just adding a flat bonus to your AC, someone using a shield can basically parry attacks with it. So when they got attacked, they'd use BAB+DEX mod+Shield's AC bonus. If they beat the attack, it's negated. Maybe limit it to x times/round if it was too powerful. The animated shield property wouldn't have that ability, just give the flat AC bonus, or maybe it would have a fixed BAB and DEX that it could use to deflect incoming attacks.

Shields would also give their AC bonus as a bonus to reflex saves as well.

[limejuicepowder]

In my games, I've doubled the bonus for light and heavy shields, and increased tower shields to +6. Power attack also works equally well for one-handed as two-handed weapons. Quick and dirty fix perhaps, but it does make them more attractive. As is, it nearly feels like a wasted action taking a shield off your back for the paltry +2 AC...and that's not even considering the massive damage loss.

IMO, I don't think shields should grant any of the ideas that commonly get thrown around in conversations like this one: miss chance, cover, parrying abilities, etc.

Miss chance just doesn't scale properly with level: a low-level warrior would have the same chance to block a pathetic attack and he would a skillful attack. If the miss chance was tied to BaB it would be better, but still not great.

Cover just gives extra AC anyways, so I don't see the difference between this and just boosting the base value of the shield.

Any kind of parrying rule looks good on the surface, but I think it would slow the game down enough to not warrant the benefit.

Reflex saves on the other hand make perfect sense, and would be easy to implement. This would be something I'd consider for my games.

[molten_dragon]

Any kind of parrying rule looks good on the surface, but I think it would slow the game down enough to not warrant the benefit.

I don't really see how it would slow the game down. The DM would just say when she was attacking the player "You're being attacked, roll to parry with your shield". The player should already have his parry bonus written down, just like he'd have his attack bonus written with his weapon. It shouldn't take him any longer to roll and add up the result than it would the DM to roll and add up her attack roll result.

[Drelua]

Any kind of parrying rule looks good on the surface, but I think it would slow the game down enough to not warrant the benefit.

Yeah, parrying could slow down a game quite a bit; I'd just limit it to the number of attacks you get from your BAB. My DM used to have a rule that you could make a number of parry checks equal to the number of attacks you get, and although it may have been something of a buff for TWFers, it not only slowed down every round, it made every fight take a few rounds longer. We eventually dropped that rule for that reason and because it wasn't very well thought out.