Is there a such thing as a "good" sword-and-board build?

[Cybren]

From the looks of it it seems like sword-and-shield just sin't that good.
Especially considering you can just get an animated shield.

[Fizban]

Due to the animated shield, no. Even without it, still no. Popular consensus is that killing enemies faster is a much better idea. If by using a two handed weapon you kill the enemy 1 round sooner, that's a whole round of attacks no one had to take.

[Om]

On lower levels I'd argue that the added AC is more important than dealing more damage.

[Bears With Lasers]

At level one, it's a viable option. After that, not so much.

Without animated shields, get a source of bonus damage and TWF with a spiked shield and something else, maybe take Blood-Spiked Charger, and the Shield Ward feat.

[Pegasos989]

At low levels, yeah. At first level, opponents have low enough hp to die from a hit or two anyways, so using shield is really good option.

At mid levels you actually take less damage from enemy if he can beat you a round or two less than if he has higher miss chance, so shield becomes bad idea.

At high levels, the same problem. Plus you can afford animated shield. Plus enemies just think "Okay, we can't hit him but he does next to no damage, so we can just go around him..."

As Bears With Lasers mentioned, TWFing with shield might be decent, if you have a source of bonus damage. (Wounding enchantment to shield spikes? O.o Sneak attack with shield? "Didn't see that coming?!")

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Perhaps there might be a way to make a shield work, but it will be far more effort than to even duo-wield...

Grab a decent 1h weapon. If you can get away with a D10 1h weapon without blowing a feat, go for it (Dwarves, I'm talkin' ta you), otherwise go with either a Rapier ( D6 finessable and crit 18-20) or Longsword (d8 crit 19-20). Scim is a waste, Rapier can do everything a Scim can, and is finessable.

Grab a Large Shield. Slap on Shield Spikes.

Now we get to the magic. Your shield will be the most magical item you possess...

The shield spikes are considered a weapon, so you enchant them with a +X Defending (depending on your budget, for the price of an enchantment of +)X+1)). You'll be trading all that in for AC anyways, as described a bit later. Now the shield itself will be a +1 Bashing (can be higher bonuses, or get Arrow Deflection if you're that worried about it, Bashing is the important part here). Because your shield is Bashing, it's considered a +1 magic weapon reguardless of the bonus on the shield itself, or the enchantment on the spikes. In effect, you're getting +X unnamed bonus to AC for the price of an additional +(X+1) weapon which happens to take up the same slot as your shield.

Now for feats...

Let's start with the basics:

TWF, Oversized TWF

With Oversized TWF, you're using your 1h weapon and your large shield with only a -2/-2, and they're both doing D8 damage. Very respectable for a duo-wield build considering you're stacking on an extra 10 AC for the bargain.

Then slap on ITWF and GTWF at the appropriate levels

It's about as close to an optimized sword-and-board build as I have ever seen.

[Pegasos989]

Oversized TWF lets you use two one-handed weapons instead of one-handed and light weapon, so how did you get a large shield? :O

[Bears With Lasers]

Uh, Large Shield as opposed to Small Shield or Buckler. The +2 AC kind.

[Pegasos989]

Uh, Large Shield as opposed to Small Shield or Buckler. The +2 AC kind.

Ah, so some leftover term from 3.0 (wasn't around then...)? My PHB and SRD call them heavy shields.

[Bears With Lasers]

I do too, but I gathered that's what was meant. :P

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

alternate Sword and Board build:

Bastard Sword
Razored Shield [yes Victoria, it's Slashing damage] (Underdark)

Human Fighter/Warblade/Bloodstorm Blade
Feats
Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword)
EWP: Bastard Sword
Shield Specialization
Improved Shield Bash
Shield Sling
Weapon Spec (Bastard Sword)
Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing)
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot

Go with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw disciplines

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

heck, that may be my next character... not bad

[Bears With Lasers]

Um, why a bastard sword? Do you REALLY think a feat is worth a 1-point increase in average damage?

[Behold_the_Void]

Good sword and board build = one you enjoy playing.

However, optimally I think it requires use of PHBII feats. I'll tinker around when I don't have such a pounding headache.

[MrNexx]

Perhaps there might be a way to make a shield work, but it will be far more effort than to even duo-wield...

Grab a decent 1h weapon. If you can get away with a D10 1h weapon without blowing a feat, go for it (Dwarves, I'm talkin' ta you), otherwise go with either a Rapier ( D6 finessable and crit 18-20) or Longsword (d8 crit 19-20). Scim is a waste, Rapier can do everything a Scim can, and is finessable.

Grab a Large Shield. Slap on Shield Spikes.

Go with a Kukri or short sword. You don't need Oversized TWF, it's finesseable (it's light), and it's only slightly lower damage or worse critical than a rapier. Since your shield spikes are your main weapon, you're not going to have to worry about it being your off-hand weapon, anyway.

If you have a shortsword and a heavy shield, you have the core of a very effective sword-and-board build. Coincidentally enough, it's one that was quite popular about 2000 years ago... though they used Banded Mail.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, there's the Divine Tower Shield Summoner.

Uses the Tower Shield for Total Cover, while summoning minions to do battle. Quite vexing until somone figures out that when using a Tower Shield for Total Cover, you don't threaten, and Sundering is a safe matter.

Also works with Astral Construct Constructing Psions.

Oh, wait - you said SWORD and board. Oops.

[knewsom]

I can tell you from my own real life experience, having a two-handed weapon or wielding two weapons is simply more effective in combat than having a shield. (I'm in the SCA. www.sca.org ) The only time a sheild is really handy is when you're in a sheild wall facing pikes and archers, and that's because it affords you COVER. For skirmishing and one on one combat, I choose greatsword everytime (or two swords).

[Skyserpent]

Bastard Sword and a one level dip in Exotic Weapon Mastery, Now I get double my strength bonus to damage when wielding it two handed. I think THAT'S worth a Feat.

[Bears With Lasers]

I can tell you from my own real life experience, having a two-handed weapon or wielding two weapons is simply more effective in combat than having a shield. (I'm in the SCA. www.sca.org (http://www.sca.org) ) The only time a sheild is really handy is when you're in a sheild wall facing pikes and archers, and that's because it affords you COVER. For skirmishing and one on one combat, I choose greatsword everytime (or two swords).

That is completely the opposite of what I heard from people who spar with experienced shield-users.

[Pegasos989]

Bastard Sword and a one level dip in Exotic Weapon Mastery, Now I get double my strength bonus to damage when wielding it two handed. I think THAT'S worth a Feat.

Yeah, but you know, if we want to make efficient shield fighter, the two handing bastard sword... :D

[Brickwall]

Yes, yes of course there is.

Cleric of Heironeus with the War domain would be more than viable enough.

Or a druid with a scimitar and shield.

[Counterspin]

Before the advent of fiberclass in weapon construction in Dagorhir (SCA pads the people, we pad the weapons, similar though), which allowed weapons to bend in entirely un-metallic ways, the sword and board was the definitive armament. We went through a long cavalcade of dominating folks who fought with tower shields, beginning with our group founder. This is as close to real life medieval combat has I have gotten. Sword and board is not just the thing, it's the only thing. :smallsmile:

[PinkysBrain]

Classic Sword and Board trades offense for defense ... in hard encounters against intelligent opponents that simply means you get ignored, you are both not a real threat because you cause low damage and too hard a target. It only works really well for the Knight, who can force opponents to pay attention. A TWF shield fighter can sidestep this problem, but that isn't really what most people mean when they say sword and board.

The Knight class is pretty much the only way to make a classical Sword and Board combo work well.

[Brickwall]

Counterspin, the thing you need to keep in mind is this:

In D&D
As long as you're above 0 HP, you're fine. The main goal is to do damage and technically survive.

In Real Battle or Live Simulation
Getting hit once is devastating (and, in real battle, could change your entire life), so minimizing injury is higher priority than causing damage.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Go with a Kukri or short sword. You don't need Oversized TWF, it's finesseable (it's light), and it's only slightly lower damage or worse critical than a rapier. Since your shield spikes are your main weapon, you're not going to have to worry about it being your off-hand weapon, anyway.

If you have a shortsword and a heavy shield, you have the core of a very effective sword-and-board build. Coincidentally enough, it's one that was quite popular about 2000 years ago... though they used Banded Mail.

As a bit of pedantry, they used Tower Shields with Short Swords, and Throwing Darts for ranged combat.

And I perfer my weapon to do significant damage. My shield (not the spikes, which actually only have the benifit of allowing me to use Defending and jack up the bonus as high as I can afford to get 'free' AC) is my 'off hand weapon'.

Here's a sample build:

Dwarf Fighter 4

1st: Improved Shield Bash, TWF
2nd: Oversized TWF
3rd: Combat Expertise
4th: feat of choice

Since a Dwarf can use a Dwarven War Axe as a melee weapon rather than exotic, he will use a War Axe (D10 weapon) and his Shield of Bashing (D8 weapon).

He can trade up 4 BAB for an extra 4 AC. He's got his enchanted shield, depending on how much wealth he has left, he may have gotten around to enchanting the spikes, although probably not much at this point. Keep in mind, the ONLY enchantment to give the spikes is Defending, and choose to keep ALL the enchantment bonuses turned into free AC.

He's probably got an AC in the mid 30's, which is going to be very difficult for a CR appropriate encounter to hit him with, unless it's using touch attacks (4th level Kobold Sorcerer using Scorching Ray, for instance).

[Leon]

Good sword and board build = one you enjoy playing.

However, optimally I think it requires use of PHBII feats. I'll tinker around when I don't have such a pounding headache.


The PHB2 Shield Spec line of feats and the Shield slam & charge from Complete warrior make for good Sword and Boardage


Go with a Kukri or short sword. You don't need Oversized TWF, it's finesseable (it's light), and it's only slightly lower damage or worse critical than a rapier. Since your shield spikes are your main weapon, you're not going to have to worry about it being your off-hand weapon, anyway.

If you have a shortsword and a heavy shield, you have the core of a very effective sword-and-board build. Coincidentally enough, it's one that was quite popular about 2000 years ago... though they used Banded Mail.

dont forget a shortspear or Javelin as well

[ImperiousLeader]

A Warblade or Crusader may be able to make storm-and-board with the extra damage from ToB maneuvers. A Warblade with Stormguard Warrior and Robilar's Gambit can work as a storm-and-board, the shield's extra AC helps to offset the penalty Robilar's gives you.

[knewsom]

That is completely the opposite of what I heard from people who spar with experienced shield-users.

If the people you know who have recently sparred with experienced shield users are used to only fighting other dual weilders or two-handed weapons, sure - anything new and different is a challenge. Just like if you've never fought anyone with anything but sword and board adn then tried to fight someone with a greatsword, you'd probably get your ass handed to you.

I knew how to fight with a bastard sword before I joined the SCA, but only a bit (took Aikido and learned some Kendo too). First thing I tried in the SCA was sword and board, but I hated being blinded by the thing. I felt like it gave my opponent more of an advantage than it gave me, so I picked up a two handed sword and started tearing people apart. In my authorization fight against a knight with a sword and shield, I legged him, then killed him. A KNIGHT. This was only a couple months after starting to fight with the local group. Later that day I won a title in a tourney. Since then, I made a greatsword which I like a lot more than the bastard sword, and I like to think I did a good job as the Defender of the Northern Mountains, fighting off the invading armies of An Tyr in AS 38... I realize that there are some people in the SCA who aren't used to fighting people with greatswords or bastard swords, but the majority have had enough encounters with them to know what to expect, at least to a certain level. In single combat and skirmishing, sword and board typically gets PWNED. In a shield wall, however, greatsword is bloody useless, as I learned the hard way many a time.

[Matthew]

As a bit of pedantry, they used Tower Shields with Short Swords, and Throwing Darts for ranged combat.

No, no they didn't. Mr Nexx is right (except perhaps with regard to Banded Mail, but that's really a nomenlature thing). Read the Tower Shield description again and you will notice they are actually describing a Pavise. It's a common perception that D&D Tower Shield = Scutum, but it doesn't appear to be the case. The most definitive argument is that a Scutum did not weigh 45 lbs, which Tower Shields undeniably do. As for Throwing Darts, that may be the case for certain types of Roman Warrior, but it does not describe a Pilum, which may be best equated with a Javelin.

Viable Sword and Shield Build. Beyond a certain Power Level you are going to be better served with Two Handed Fighting. At low Levels a Heavy Shield is a handy item to have access to. After about Level Four, the Sword and Shield Fighter is heavily outclassed.

The reason not to use Short Sword and Heavy Shield in combination is that you cannot Power Attack with the Short Sword or use it Two Handed later on. The Exotic Weapons Master does make it a potentially good idea to invest in Bastard Sword and Heavy Shield at Level One and switch to Two Handed Fighting at some later point.

Two Weapon Fighting will probably work out well, as you can use it in combination with Sword and Shield as an Unarmed Attack or with Spiked Armour and do the same thing later on with Two Handed Fighting.

Basically, the best way to use Sword and Shield is to use it, invest nothing in it and make sure you can go Two Handed Fighting at the drop of a hat.

Possible Core Build:

Level One
Two Weapon Fighting
Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bastard Sword
Weapon Focus - Bastard Sword
Level Two
Power Attack
Level Three
Cleave
Level Four
Specialisation - Bastard Sword

You could sub Proficiency, Focus or Specialisation out, but I think you need them for Exotic Weapon Master. If you are not following that path, Combat Expertise might be handy. Depends on exactly how you want to progress.

In 'Real Life' there do appear to be those who advocate Weapon and Shield and those who advocate Two Handed Weapons. Hard to say which is really better.

[NullAshton]

Remove animated shields.

Problem solved! That was easy.

[Fizban]

Well, in my (completely non-official amature) RL experience, sword and board pwns two handed. A friend had some padded swords left over from when he did a swordfighting thing, and it was quite difficult to get past the shield. Our differing levels of skill probably had more to do with it, but when I could get him to use a two hander instead, my odds of winning went from maybe 1/4 to 1/3. I actually did better against the sword and board with dual wielding than with two handing, since I could attack from both sides of the shield and force him to choose which to guard.

[Mike_G]

SCA results are skewed, since the elimination of the leg from just above the knee down (which is proabbly the juiciest and most often aimed at target in RL combat) throws the whole fight into a different light than if Maximus and Vercingetorix squared off for control of Gaul. The fact that all blows are high means you might well blind youself with a shield, and you can't block the two hander and simultaneously hack at his front leg changes everything. It's easy to attack and defend with a big sword if it's all in the same line.

Much like modern foil fencing eliminates the limbs and head as targets, once you start making combat safe, it's a sport, and no longer gives useful data for actual combat.

[knewsom]

There's something else you're failing to take into account - two handed weapons have WAY more reach than a single handed one. If in the SCA we were to allow the full body as a target, my greatsword would become even more valuable with its nice long reach. I'd be able to take that hack at my opponent's leg as my first of second shot before they even got in RANGE with their sword. Also, IRL, a greatsword can either cut right through or break the arm that's holding a sheild. To say that the way SCA combat is currently is "all attacks in the same line", is just silly - I have to invert my sword MANY times during the course of a fight in order to block shots to just above my knees. Furthermore, when a shield bearer is blocking his leg, he leaves his head open, and vice versa. Headshots are the coveted target in the SCA, but we go for leg shots quite often as well. I LOVE to leg dudes, and leave them for later. fun times.

Like I said before, they are both incredibly useful, but for different tasks. Sheilds are great for sheild walls, hiding from arrows, and deflecting pikes and boiling oil during a siege. In single combat and skirmishing, a greatsword/bastard sword is a far more deadly weapon, which is PROBABLY why the claymore was such a popular weapon in Scotland, and why the Katana was such a popular weapon in Japan, and sheilds were not common at all (primarily feudal areas - more small battles and skirmishes, less all out wars). Countries with MASSIVE armies like England, France, China, Rome, etc. tended to have tons of shield bearers becasue they can form a defensive wall and are more useful in a WAR than say, a leigion of greatswords.

As for shields in DnD, well, I'm not sure sure I dig the whole animated weapon or shield thing in the FIRST place, it seems so cheap... that being said, it does favor dual wielding or two handed weapons, but then again, so do I IRL, unless we're talking a WAR situation, and I think that to a person in a shield wall in DnD, they SHOULD get a concealment bonus due to having cover on each side by their neighbor. I'd say 50% concealment in a shield wall.

[Mike_G]

I'm not going to get sucked into the "my style can beat up your style" debate.

I've done college fencing (gotten a national rating), SCA rapier, SCA heavy list, some foam and PVC fanatsy LARP stuff, and Uncle Sam's Misguided Children taught me bayonet, K-Bar and Dirty tricks.

The barring of low hits that the SCA Heavy List does changes the animal. Yes, you can "leg" people, but that really means "thigh" people.

I'll link to this essay, and then drop it.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/fullleg.htm

[erewhon]

alternate Sword and Board build:

Bastard Sword
Razored Shield [yes Victoria, it's Slashing damage] (Underdark)

Human Fighter/Warblade/Bloodstorm Blade
Feats
Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword)
EWP: Bastard Sword
Shield Specialization
Improved Shield Bash
Shield Sling
Weapon Spec (Bastard Sword)
Melee Weapon Mastery (Slashing)
Point Blank Shot
Precise Shot

Go with Stone Dragon and Tiger Claw disciplines

Wow. That is not at ALL how I would go about a sword and board build, but that's really interesting.

Is is possible to squeeze animated and returning into a razored shield? You see where this is going, right? :D

I have always liked razored shields better than spikes (just seems cleaner and a better fit, somehow) and the Weapon Master(slashing) makes it...NICE.

Of course, Weapon Master also makes TWF much nicer too.... A lot of nice stuff to say about dual short swords.

How about a build where you drop the ranged attacks with the shield? What would your thoughts be, with all the array of sword and board feats? You seem to have a gift for this... :D

[Norsesmithy]

I just wish to add that as much as I like big swords, even 6 foot plus, two handed, for sparing and general ******* around, Mike is right. Applying any sort of rules to combat changes it tremendously.

But as to the DnD, I can't imagine a Greatsword weilding high level Paladin anymore without a Buckler, +X, heavy fortification.

Handy little thing it is.

Edit: Also, Knewsom, my experience with playing around with replica and reproduction weapons (as well as one or two notable knife/bar fights) would seem to emphasise that in single or small group combat (IE not more than 10 men total)the reach of a melee weapon is vastly overrated, if combat survives the first two or three seconds.

[erewhon]

I just wish to add that as much as I like big swords, even 6 foot plus, two handed, for sparing and general ******* around, Mike is right. Applying any sort of rules to combat changes it tremendously.

But as to the DnD, I can't imagine a Greatsword weilding high level Paladin anymore without a Buckler, +X, heavy fortification.

Handy little thing it is.

Ssssh! You're giving away the good secrets! :D

[Person_Man]

Given the existance of the animated shield, I have yet to see a "good" sword and board build that isn't outclassed by a two handed weapon build.

As others have mentioned, its useful at low levels, but almost never worth investing feats in, despite the valiant efforts of the PHBII.

However, if you have a PC that's wedded to sword and board, and they're being left in the dust by other melee PC's (and hopelessly outclassed by full progression spellcasters) I would simply give them a very powerful magic shield (after a sufficiently difficult side-quest, or course). This "justifies" their build, and allows them to keep pace with everyone else.

[knewsom]

Oh, I never said that adding rules doesn't change combat. Simply attempting to SIMULATE combat changes it. If you can't really die or be seriously injured (or rather its very unlikely), you're far more likely to take serious risks with your "life", and combat becomes quite unrealistic. I've NEVER seen a shield wall advance and then retreat before contact is made in the SCA, but that was a VERY common occurance, historically speaking.

From your article:
"In one sense, it's arguable that lower legs can sometimes be more vulnerable when a shield is used than when fighting with sword alone. A shield user can often be made to lift his shield and momentarily blind himself, thereby becoming vulnerable to an incoming blow changing its line of attack downward. Anyone who really believes the lower legs are irrelevant should try fighting with someone good at hitting them there. They themselves may not bother striking their opponent s lower legs, but they will fast learn the mistake of exposing their own."

I had no intention of starting a "my style beats your style" debate. There are COUNTLESS factors that affect a fight's outcome, not the least of which are setting, time of day, type of armor, etc. That being said, I stand by my previous assertation that shields are better in a war situation, two handed and dual swords are better in one on one and skirmishing - look at the evolution of modern fencing from rapier fighting. Sure, there was some sword and buckler going on, but mostly people went for a rapier and a dagger. They both have their uses, surely, and I'm in the camp that wishes the SCA would legalize full body target, including the lower leg.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I personally prefer Sword and Board in D&D to two-weapon or two handed style for a couple of reasons.

A: Everyone else is playing two handers and two weapons, which means any randomly generated treasure that includes a good shield is all but spoken for since I'm the only one who's going to use one.

B: Parrying Shield (Or whatever its called) from Lords of Madness. Getting that extra +9 (assuming a +5 tower shield) to touch AC can quite possibly make the difference between a missed maximized empowered enveneration and suddenly losing 6 levels. Or in being reduced to a pile of ash.

C: Funiness factor. The look on a wizard's face when a +1 blood seeking razor shield (Now theres an interesting combo, +1 vorpal razor shield and ranger spell that makes the next attack an automatic critical, just need to confirm it, sounds pretty neat and intimidating...not to mention it might kill a few wizards.) comes whizzing through his wind wall that had all but saved him from the gatling gu-I mean archery specialist is priceless. Espicially if said shield kills 'im.

D: Captain America. He could make it work and so can anyone else.

E: I was slain by a thrown tower shield once. It rocks your day in a bad way.

[Mike_G]

Well, modern fencing really devloped from Smallsword tehcnique, not true Rapier.

Rapier and buckler is actually pretty good. One thing you can do with a shield that niobody seems to mention is blind your opponent. With a sword held in a low guard and your shield forward, he can't see it. Beat his blade with your shield and lunge behind it, and he won't know where your point is headed until it's in him.

I found sword and shield the hardest to beat, and single sword the easiest, since all you need to do is bind one weapon then hit where it ain't. SCA rules make that tough, since almost all the good binds are illegal, like beating a weapon downwards and stepping on it, grabbing the flat of a rapier in your gloved hand or with your cloak, bind-shoulder check-thrust etc.

Your mileage may vary, but I'd much rather face a greatsword than a a sword and board.

[Gilles Marchaigne]

Historically, the biggest reason people didn't all carry greatswords was that they just couldn't afford to own one. As far as I can tell, that carries over to D&D as well. According to the SRD, a greatsword costs 50 gp. A longsword and a shield together cost less than half that (about 22 gp, if you want to get a heavy shield). A fighter who rolled a little poorly on the ol' starting wealth table can use all the breaks he can get when it comes to gearing up. That's money he can use on armour or backup gear. Those standard issue ten foot poles don't grow on trees, after all (well, technically they do, but you get my point). :smallamused:

Another thing to keep in mind is versatility. Remember - it's not a shield! It's an off-hand bludgeoning weapon that also adds to AC! Any low-level Bard with a whip may think it's funny to disarm your sword, but fellows like that rarely expect a good tap to the jaw from Mister Shield Rim. A Fighter who has TWF and is carrying a dagger as his off-hand weapon would be doing just as much damage if he used his shield instead, *and* he would have a higher AC.

Versatility is the key, here. Once you start enchanting stuff, why would you want JUST a suit of magical armour when you can have magical armour AND a magical shield? They still stack at higher levels, and some shield enchantments can't be given to weapons or armor. Since so many people seem to be against using shields, a fighter who DOES might have a marked advantage in a world where nobody else does. For one thing, he'll have a better AC, and probably be at least as effective as any other TWF. Let's not forget that you can give a spiked shield both the same enhancements as most armours AND the same enhancements as most weapons at the same time, as well as having abilities of their own. Am I alone in my love for Bashing shields of Arrow Catching? :smallbiggrin:

Okay, okay, gear aside. A good build for a Fighter with sword and board is not too different from a TWF build. You want that shield for attacking with as well as defending, and the Improved Shield Bash feat is your best bet. It lets you smash people's heads in and still keep your AC bonus. Take it early, and take it instead of Two Weapon Defense - your shield is just as good for AC, and you don't have to fight defensively to get the benefit. Shields are good for Bull Rushes, too - ever wondered how to tackle that fellow with the flaming body and not burn your hands? Just ram him back with your shield. The shield may be damaged, but your HP will be relatively fine. Sundering can be super fun: the only thing better than having your sword and shield working together is to smash that other guy's two-handed weapon and watch him wish that he had picked up Improved Unarmed Strike. Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting are musts, and don't be afraid to Weapon Focus or Specialize on the shield as well as the sword. Animating sheilds will always be a pain, but look at it this way - your non-animated shield can carry an extra +2 bonus that their fancy floating disk can't.

Oh, and people actually think swords and sheilds were bad in actual historical melee? Man, the Vikings will be shocked to hear that.... :smalleek:

[Fizban]

On the reach of a greatsword, sure, if both people are using single swords it's a huge advantage. But against a shield, I had to get in close to try and find an angle I could hit from. Just about the only area I could attack reliably was the lower legs in fact. And the comment on blinding and binding an enemy with the shield: that's what I found as well. Since I couldn't see the rest of my opponent's body, I had to guess which weird angle I'd try to attack from, and once I did he just smacked my sword away and I had to retreat.
Anyway, that's not what this thread's about, so I'm dropping it too.

On DnD: the only problem is that even with a shield, high level enemies will normally have no problem hitting you, though if the dragon has to lower it's power attack to hit you, you may have accomplished something. Most high level melee enemies have massive attack bonuses just to counter shield users in the first place, or so it seems. Thus, while it's good to have a decent AC, you're not likely to prevent many attacks with it and you've lowered your damage output in the process.

But, versatility is an excellent advantage in DnD, so carrying a shield is always a good idea at least. A THF using a long/bastard sword can let go with one hand and use a buckler if he needs it, or just get Improved Buckler Defense and have extra lactose free AC.

[Talanic]

Agreed that it's the only way to make sword-and-shield builds viable higher up, but it still doesn't address that even if animated shields didn't exist, players still won't use shields at mid to high levels because it pretty thoroughly sucks.

[Mike_G]

The problem with D&D combat for one handed weapons is that all the feats and actions favor two handed weapons. A lot.

Str bonus at 1.5 for two handed weapons. That makes perfect sense. You can hit harder with two hands. Power attack should still be +1 damage per -1 attack, though. As you gain force, you sacrifice accuracy. Doubling the benefit for two handers just pushes the balance very far in their favor. They do more base damage anyway, and you already get the extra Strength damage.

Then, in disarm attempts, the +4 for two handed means a lot.

Plus, reach weapons, etc.

The advantages of small, light weapons in RL is they are fast, can easily change direction in the attack to feint here and then hit there, and can move quicker from attack to defense and back. The rules don't give them any bonuses for this stuff, other then being Finesse-able, which just means you can use Dex instead of Str to attack. Nice for Rogues, not really a big deal for a Fighter, who should have a higher Str anyway.

I would make PA 1/1 bonus regardless of weapon. That would make the TWF and shield builds closer to THF. Not equal, and more feat heavy, but closer. As is, there's no way to compete. Or, if Finesse let Str and Dex bonus stack to hit, then there would be a clear choice advantage of "light weapons are accurate, heavy weapons do damage."

As it stands, there is no good mechanical reason to go sword and board, which is too bad.

[Pegasos989]

I would make PA 1/1 bonus regardless of weapon. That would make the TWF and shield builds closer to THF. Not equal, and more feat heavy, but closer. As is, there's no way to compete. Or, if Finesse let Str and Dex bonus stack to hit, then there would be a clear choice advantage of "light weapons are accurate, heavy weapons do damage."

As it stands, there is no good mechanical reason to go sword and board, which is too bad.


The thing is, that by chaging PA to 1/1 you nerf the most efficient melee fighting style, thus greatly nerfing melee types. Rather boost two weaponers than nerf two handers...

[Falconsflight]

Get a person, perferably a halfling, with a lot of knives and a class in Master weapons throwing or whisper knife or something like that and give them a Tower sheild.

Slap it down and hide behind it from almost all ranged attacks, and then throw knives and the like from afar. Sniping feats and the like are the best.

[Matthew]

Historically, the biggest reason people didn't all carry greatswords was that they just couldn't afford to own one.

What is the evidence for this generalisation and what do you have in mind when you say 'Great Sword'?


The problem with D&D combat for one handed weapons is that all the feats and actions favor two handed weapons. A lot.

Str bonus at 1.5 for two handed weapons. That makes perfect sense. You can hit harder with two hands. Power attack should still be +1 damage per -1 attack, though. As you gain force, you sacrifice accuracy. Doubling the benefit for two handers just pushes the balance very far in their favor. They do more base damage anyway, and you already get the extra Strength damage.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing the other day. I'm not sure if it would work or not, though. As Pegasus, says, it may go too far in the other direction. I'm not convinced either way.

Shields need to provide a better defence than just +X to AC.

[Fizban]

A parry system would make shields a lot more valuable, but DnD doesn't like parrying. So we get "fight defensively" and "combat expertise", and homebrewed parry feats that are over or underpowered.

[Matthew]

A parrying system is indeed my ideal solution, perhaps ala Conan D20. There are plenty of other possible Parry / Block / Dodge variants, though. (A)D&D 2.x had a (not so good) system for it; sad they didn't update and keep it or even allow for it in Unearthed Arcana.

As for the real life debate, maybe we should move it to the Real World Weapons and Armour Thread.

[Pegasos989]

What about letting shields give you concealment type miss chance (not concealment per se, as it should work a bit diffrently but anyways, % chance that it won't hit you) stating that
buckler gives you 10%
Heavy shield 30%
Tower shield 50%

Getting 50% of attacks on you miss might very well be worth dealing a lot less damage. Still, it keeps the problem "You aren't a threat and enemies can't hit you so they go around you" so it isn't as good as it sounds.

[Matthew]

Yeah, concealment is certainly an option. The main problem for me would be that it isn't tied into any ability with the Shield.

[Golthur]

I think the key to getting sword-and-board to be good again is, as said, make the shield worth more than +X to AC. In one of the many fighter threads I posted some feats which were meant for that.

Boosting all shields to start is a good idea. I mean, even if you just hide behind it, it will protect you quite a bit better than +1 or +2 to AC. The trick is being able to actually attack at the same time :smile:

Adding an ability (like Shield Focus/Specialization) to allow fighters to boost their shield's effectiveness is also good, but it should offer plenty of bang for the buck if it's costing the fighter a feat.

The last part, I'd say, is to allow additional unique abilities (at the cost of fighter feats) due to expertise in the use of a shield - like protecting your allies, deflecting potentially lethal blows, blocking arrows, bonuses against Reflex save effects, and so on.

[Brickwall]

Shields should add bonuses to Partial and Total Defense, at least. If I'm just holding my shield, it doesn't do much. But if I spend some effort in using it (partial defense), it's more than twice as effective. And if I basically just hide behind it to the best of my ability, I've basically got at least 1/4 cover.

All shields providing cover bonuses. Hmm....I'll have to research that.

[Golthur]

Shields should add bonuses to Partial and Total Defense, at least. If I'm just holding my shield, it doesn't do much. But if I spend some effort in using it (partial defense), it's more than twice as effective. And if I basically just hide behind it to the best of my ability, I've basically got at least 1/4 cover.

All shields providing cover bonuses. Hmm....I'll have to research that.
I do something like this in my house rules.

I divvy up shields into buckler, small (targes), large (heaters, kites), and tower (wall shield, scutum). When used normally (that is, when you're attacking), they provide +1, +2, +3, and +4 cover bonuses to your AC, respectively. When using total defense, I double the normal bonus. If you have additional bonuses to your AC due to your shield (such as due to Shield Focus, etc.), those get doubled as well.

I also make a shield work like cover - that is, half the cover bonus due to the shield (round down) is also added to your Reflex saves.

[Matthew]

Opposed Rolls for me. If you have a Shield you can make one Block Attempt in a Combat Round versus an otherwise successful Attack.

[1D20 + Base Attack Bonus + Strength Bonus + Shield Bonus]

Block Feats are available, which add +2, and Weapon Finesse can be used with regard to Light Shields, allowing a Character to use their Dexterity Bonus instead of their Strength Bonus.

[Ephraim]

Counterspin, the thing you need to keep in mind is this:

In D&D
As long as you're above 0 HP, you're fine. The main goal is to do damage and technically survive.

In Real Battle or Live Simulation
Getting hit once is devastating (and, in real battle, could change your entire life), so minimizing injury is higher priority than causing damage.

I wanted to quote this comment because it drives home one of the limitations of D&D. Some people want to play a sword-and-board fighter because it is historically accurate or because that is the image they have of a medieval fantasy warrior. Unfortunately, the system simply fails to accurately simulate this aspect of combat. Players understand and accept that their characters are going to get hit a lot and are going to suffer a lot of damage. When you know that as long as your character doesn't die, he'll recover from any wounds he receives, it's easy to ignore practical self defense in favour of number crunching.

I'd be very interested to see how D&D would play out if people portrayed their characters with a more realistic degree of caution and self-preservation.

[erewhon]

Shields need to provide a better defence than just +X to AC.



I revamped the armor rules in my homebrew a while back to allow for DR and ER to also be enchanted. (Twice the cost of AC enchantments,etc, etc.) I had to make new base materials with DR and ER as a foundation, work out rational costs, etc.

It's working very well so far, I've had to tweak the system very little, which is a tribute to the underlying math done when they rebuilt the game mechanics.

It's likely the most complex thing I've tried so far, and it works nicely. :)

[erewhon]

I do something like this in my house rules.

I divvy up shields into buckler, small (targes, target shields), large (heaters, kites), and tower (wall shield, scutum). When used normally (that is, when you're attacking), they provide +1, +2, +3, and +4 cover bonuses to your AC, respectively. When using total defense, I double the normal bonus. If you have additional bonuses to your AC due to your shield (such as due to Shield Focus, etc.), those get doubled as well.

I also make a shield work like cover - that is, half the cover bonus due to the shield (round down) is also added to your Reflex saves.

Hmmmm.

Very interesting stuff. Gives a real incentive to use some of those defensive manuevers and feats....

I kinda like this. :)

[erewhon]

Opposed Rolls for me. If you have a Shield you can make one Block Attempt in a Combat Round versus an otherwise successful Attack.

[1D20 + Base Attack Bonus + Strength Bonus + Shield Bonus]

Block Feats are available, which add +2, and Weapon Finesse can be used with regard to Light Shields, allowing a Character to use their Dexterity Bonus instead of their Strength Bonus.

Ugh! <shudder>

I got burned to death on opposed rolls in GURPS. No thank you, one of the big attractions of D20 is the speed of combat. More rolls = bad, in my opinion. :)

Mind you, it's a very accurate mechanic, it just bogs down combat way too much for my tastes. I'm all for making shields better, I just put all the calculations on non-session time by modifying the item creation rules.

[The_Werebear]

Hrmmm...

Maybe you could make it less defensibly feasible to use a large two hander? Maybe apply a maximum dex to AC bonus that doesn't apply for sheilds.

Or, you could just scale shield AC. From 1-5, a heavy shield is +2 ac. From 6-10, +3. 11-15, +4. 16-20 +5.

[erewhon]

On DnD: the only problem is that even with a shield, high level enemies will normally have no problem hitting you, though if the dragon has to lower it's power attack to hit you, you may have accomplished something.

Yeppers, which is rather the point. :)

If you look at the BAB progressions, it is obvious the designers expected melee characters to have considerably better AC's than they tend to actually have in practice. In my opinion, that's because players tend to concentrate on offense to the exclusion of almost everything else.



Most high level melee enemies have massive attack bonuses just to counter shield users in the first place, or so it seems.

Shields, plus all those defensive feats that nobody seems to ever use. :)


Thus, while it's good to have a decent AC, you're not likely to prevent many attacks with it and you've lowered your damage output in the process.

I suspect this is why the Warmace was placed in the game, as an effort to make sword and board more viable. Two hander damage in one hand, what's not to like? :) Of course, then they stuck it with an AC penalty.... <sigh>

But, there's an important benefit: Yes, even with HUGE AC, high-level critters are likely to hit, but if you can pull ten points of BAB out of their Power Attack, that's like your armor class just gave you free DR20 versus that critter. (Do I remember that right? Hrrrmmm...)

That's fairly major! :)



But, versatility is an excellent advantage in DnD, so carrying a shield is always a good idea at least. A THF using a long/bastard sword can let go with one hand and use a buckler if he needs it, or just get Improved Buckler Defense and have extra lactose free AC.



Yes, one point I think few people "get" is that a Sword and Board build IS a Two Weapon build. :) Just becuz one weapon looks funny doesn't change that.

It's just more versatile, because the presence of the shield as the second weapon allows many very powerful feats to be taken.

[Matthew]

Ugh! <shudder>

I got burned to death on opposed rolls in GURPS. No thank you, one of the big attractions of D20 is the speed of combat. More rolls = bad, in my opinion. :)

Mind you, it's a very accurate mechanic, it just bogs down combat way too much for my tastes. I'm all for making shields better, I just put all the calculations on non-session time by modifying the item creation rules.

I can see how it might slow down play, though it hasn't so far (about a hundred or so sessions). The Opposed Roll only comes out against an Attack that has already hit the normal AC. It's the same sort of mechanic as used to negate attacks against a Mount by way of the Mounted Combat Feat and Ride Skill.

An alternative is to just assume the 1D20 comes up as 10 (which I often use for minor enemies to prevent the afore mentioned potential for slow down), which would make it:

[10 + Base Attack Bonus + Strength Bonus + Shield Bonus]

It's not for everyone, that's for sure.

[Closet_Skeleton]

If you're re-working shields, make sure you actually know what a buckler is when you do it.

[Matthew]

If you're re-working shields, make sure you actually know what a buckler is when you do it.

Thing is, it doesn't matter, as long as you define what you think it is. The D&D Long Sword works by the same criteria.

[Kantolin]

I think, as others have stated, that the major flaw with the shield is that it's a flat +2.

Thus, unless you focus on AC to the exclusion of anything else, it gets increasingly more likely that you'll be hit as other people gain BAB.

That stated, you can have fairly good success if you do focus on AC to the exclusion of anything else, and rely on other people for the purpose of damage. Especially if you're not the only fighter in the party, in which a shield helps considerably.

Trouble again, then, is animated shields. Therefore, any build involving a shield and sword is probably best done as a ludicrously high AC-monkey, and then one where you need every ounce of coin you have to go to AC, so you can't afford the +2 bonus spent in making the shield animated. After all, that's a +2 that can go somewhere else.

[Thrawn183]

A friend of mine, who plays in a campaign with me drew up a character that only uses shields and doesn't carry a typical "weapon". He said the only real drawback was the cost involved. I got the impression that there are now enough feats available to have a viable build centered around using a shield.

[Matthew]

He may be making the classic Shield Bonuses don't stack mistake, or not. Otherwise, it probably isn't much different from Weapon and Shield, except that he only need Focus and Specialise in one Weapon.

[Thrawn183]

He may be making the classic Shield Bonuses don't stack mistake, or not. Otherwise, it probably isn't much different from Weapon and Shield, except that he only need Focus and Specialise in one Weapon.

I'm sure he isn't making the shield bonuses mistake, though why they don't stack is beyond me... (i'm sorry catgirls), it just makes sense to me that they should. Anyway, he managed to get some very nice damage out of it.

[erewhon]

I think, as others have stated, that the major flaw with the shield is that it's a flat +2.

Er, you CAN enchant shields, you know. :) It starts at a base plus two, and for a fairly small outlay of coin, can become a +7. It doesn't suck. :)

Although the idea of adding fighter level/5 to the base AC of any shield used has a certain appeal, for several reasons. :)



Thus, unless you focus on AC to the exclusion of anything else, it gets increasingly more likely that you'll be hit as other people gain BAB.

Right. But when the BAB progessions were worked out, the designers obviously expected meleers to be carrying good defensive equipment. I mean, a +5 shield and +5 platemail isn't all THAT expensive. :) That's +20AC right there!

If you also use the trick of enchanting spikes with the Defender trick, you can eke out another +3 if I remember right, although that's getting expensive....

And that shield IS a second weapon. In many cases, quite a good one!



That stated, you can have fairly good success if you do focus on AC to the exclusion of anything else, and rely on other people for the purpose of damage. Especially if you're not the only fighter in the party, in which a shield helps considerably.

Now, where's the fun in that? :)


Trouble again, then, is animated shields.

Why do folks seem to think animated shields are so horrible? Pick a side of the argument and stick with it folks: Either fighters suck and need all the helpful toys they can get, or mages are not overwhelmingly powerful at the high end.

EVERY mid-to-high level fighter should have a shield, period. Animated or not. :) The whole point of the animated enchantment is to allow two-handers to get some decent AC later in the game. The sword-and-boarders get better AC early, and more flexibility always.


Therefore, any build involving a shield and sword is probably best done as a ludicrously high AC-monkey, and then one where you need every ounce of coin you have to go to AC, so you can't afford the +2 bonus spent in making the shield animated. After all, that's a +2 that can go somewhere else.

Heh. Well...

In my opinion, every character should work on at least five aspects: Offense, Defense, Movement, Senses, and Social.

Most meleers tend to get hooked on that yummy, yummy offense and neglect the rest. This is why fighters tend to be such incredible damage machines, but a few taps to the magical chin and they fold. It's nothing wrong with the class, per se. :)

[Mauril Everleaf]

i love some of the ideas here for sword-and-boarding. ive always been partial to using a shield, but that comes from my earlier dnd roots, wherein any bonus to AC was huge. (shields were so awesome in 1ed, that we had to nerf them a bit to tone down the potential brokenness. think about that.) im glad that other people too want to make the shield useful again. also, bc of my 1ed roots, i hadnt ever considered the shield a weapon. i mean, i should have, every medieval movie has someone getting bashed with the shield. tacking on spikes or blades makes sense too. i mean, lots of ancient societies put things on their shields (most often metal studs) to make them more effective when drving back enemies.

i like the idea of scaling shield AC with level. why should hitting stuff be the only thing that the fighter gets better at automatically?

[erewhon]

i love some of the ideas here for sword-and-boarding. ive always been partial to using a shield, but that comes from my earlier dnd roots, wherein any bonus to AC was huge. (shields were so awesome in 1ed, that we had to nerf them a bit to tone down the potential brokenness. think about that.) im glad that other people too want to make the shield useful again. also, bc of my 1ed roots, i hadnt ever considered the shield a weapon. i mean, i should have, every medieval movie has someone getting bashed with the shield. tacking on spikes or blades makes sense too. i mean, lots of ancient societies put things on their shields (most often metal studs) to make them more effective when drving back enemies.

i like the idea of scaling shield AC with level. why should hitting stuff be the only thing that the fighter gets better at automatically?

Stick a +1 Shield Base Bonus in every fighter dead level. :D +9AC just for being a Fighter and carrying a plank! WEWT!

All done now! :D

[Person_Man]

A parrying system is indeed my ideal solution, perhaps ala Conan D20. There are plenty of other possible Parry / Block / Dodge variants, though. (A)D&D 2.x had a (not so good) system for it; sad they didn't update and keep it or even allow for it in Unearthed Arcana.

Ummm, D&D is already one of the most mechanics heavy RPG games in the world. Combat already takes up 30%-70% of my group's game time, and we put a pretty heavy emphasis on roleplaying and Skills/traps riddles/puzzles/etc. Making something so complex even more complex seems like a really bad idea.

[Matthew]

That's why it's not for everyone. Opposed Combat Rolls in general are a variant proposed in the DMG, but by all accounts are not popular. I have no problems with additional Parry / Block / Dodge systems and they have proved to be well received in our group (as I say the same mechanic is used for Mounted Combat with regards to the Mount), but I readily accept that not everyone will have that experience.


i hadnt ever considered the shield a weapon. i mean, i should have, every medieval movie has someone getting bashed with the shield. tacking on spikes or blades makes sense too. i mean, lots of ancient societies put things on their shields (most often metal studs) to make them more effective when drving back enemies.

Heh. That's likely because they are so often listed as 'Armour' in RPGs, as with D&D. (A)D&D 2.x introduced the Shield Bash. It was a lot less trouble than the three Feats and 15 Dexterity it requires now [Two Weapon Fighting, Oversized Two Weapon Fighting and Improved Shield Bash], even with the new PHB2 Shield based Feats.

[Pegasos989]

Why do folks seem to think animated shields are so horrible? Pick a side of the argument and stick with it folks: Either fighters suck and need all the helpful toys they can get, or mages are not overwhelmingly powerful at the high end.

EVERY mid-to-high level fighter should have a shield, period. Animated or not. :) The whole point of the animated enchantment is to allow two-handers to get some decent AC later in the game. The sword-and-boarders get better AC early, and more flexibility always.

Well, the problem with animated shield is that it removes any need for sword and boarding, thus negating the combat style. This is why many DMs (myself included) don't allow it - though very tiny, there should be some benefit (besides the neglettable +2 ac) from halving your damage output...




Heh. Well...

In my opinion, every character should work on at least five aspects: Offense, Defense, Movement, Senses, and Social.

Most meleers tend to get hooked on that yummy, yummy offense and neglect the rest. This is why fighters tend to be such incredible damage machines, but a few taps to the magical chin and they fold. It's nothing wrong with the class, per se. :)


Well, social is really bad for fighters. You can roleplay as well as others but nothing mechanically helps you in that. At all. Senses are also bad for fighters.

Problem with defense is that any intelligent enemy sees "The fighter defends himself very well, so I can't hit him and he doesn't have too much damage output, so I will just go around him and kill the rogue first". Fighter needs to be offensive enough to make enemies come after him...

[MrNexx]

No, no they didn't. Mr Nexx is right (except perhaps with regard to Banded Mail, but that's really a nomenlature thing). Read the Tower Shield description again and you will notice they are actually describing a Pavise. It's a common perception that D&D Tower Shield = Scutum, but it doesn't appear to be the case. The most definitive argument is that a Scutum did not weigh 45 lbs, which Tower Shields undeniably do. As for Throwing Darts, that may be the case for certain types of Roman Warrior, but it does not describe a Pilum, which may be best equated with a Javelin.

I can go either way on it, actually. The Heavy Wooden Shield would seem more in line with it, but you could make an argument, especially based on the art, for the tower shield.

Pulling out C&T, they put lorica segmenta as a banded mail shirt with a studded leather skirt at AC +5, 175gp, and 20 lbs.; sounds like an improvement over a chain shirt. Lorica Hamata, which is a chain shirt with a studded leather skirt is AC +4 (on par with a 3.x chain shirt), 120gp, and 25 lbs.

C&T puts the scutum in the medium shield category... 3' by 2-3'. That's analogous to the 3.x Heavy Shield, at least in terms of shield categories. Small shields were usually round, about 2' diameter. Large shields were the 3.x tower shield 4' by 2-3'.

One way to make a shield a viable option is to make it out of admantine. Expensive as all a night with Freyja, but I would rule that it provides DR like armor of the same category (light or heavy). Personally, I'd say all shields provide DR... but I also favor armor-as-DR, so I'm a bit biased.

[Brickwall]

i like the idea of scaling shield AC with level. why should hitting stuff be the only thing that the fighter gets better at automatically?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm

With this idea, every class gets better at it. And it doesn't change the effectiveness of shields. It's just the idea that anyone gets better at not dying, which makes sense.

The issue here is that AC isn't as important a factor as damage, so why use that hand for AC instead of damage? Making shields more effective at something you don't want in the first place won't help.

[Mauril Everleaf]

i dont think he is saying that you need to consider all with equal weight. just that they need to be considered, and somehow incorporated in some way to your character. maybe your social is that you have low social skills, thats still incorporating it, just not powergaming it. its okay for one thing or another to suck, but having all areas but one suck is too narrow focused. fighters need to consider offense first (thats mostly why they are there), defense as a close second (they gotta be around to serve their purpose), movement as a middle third (gotta be able to get where you need to be in battle when you are needed). a fighter with low senses may make sense mechanically, but not logically. a fighter should be able to see/hear/percieve his enemies fairly well, or how else did he survive? granted hes not going to be as good at is as the thief (which this should be #1 on his list). social is generally gonna be low (unless youre a paladin, but thats another issue). when your primary function is to hit stuff with sharp/heavy/pointy stuff, social grace really isnt in your personality.

[Matthew]

I can go either way on it, actually. The Heavy Wooden Shield would seem more in line with it, but you could make an argument, especially based on the art, for the tower shield.

This Artwork would definitely seem to let you make an argument for it:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG124_WEB.jpg

...but I suspect the proportions are off between the upper and lower figures.

However, the description of the Tower Shield makes it fairly clear that the mechanics would not support such an interpretation:


Shield, Tower
This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#shieldBonus) to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#totalCover), though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover) against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll) because of the shield’s encumbrance.

Scuta were not nearly as tall as the user, nor would it be likely to provide total cover without significant crouching. The fact that you cannot bash with such a Shield is another point against it, as is the attack penalty. The largest reconstructed Scuta weigh no more than 22 lbs and most considerably less at around 12-15 lbs. The Tower Shield weighs 45 lbs and even given the notorious innaccuracies of D&D with regards to arms and armour, that is pushing things fairly significantly. The Heavy Shield is much more suitable, and if not, what would represent a Pavise? A large Tower Shield?


Pulling out C&T, they put lorica segmenta as a banded mail shirt with a studded leather skirt at AC +5, 175gp, and 20 lbs.; sounds like an improvement over a chain shirt. Lorica Hamata, which is a chain shirt with a studded leather skirt is AC +4 (on par with a 3.x chain shirt), 120gp, and 25 lbs.

Yup, that would be the usual interpretation. Lorica Hamata = Mail Shirt (+4 AC), Lorica Segmentata = Laminated Armour (+5 AC). Banded Mail appears to be a combination of Mail Armour and Laminated Armour, though there is little doubt that Gygax misunderstood the term Banded Mail [i.e. Banded Armour, as Mail = Armour in many older history books], which led to the confusing Banded Armour Armour, cleverly remodelled to mean Laminated Plate and Mail Armour, which appears to be the case now.



C&T puts the scutum in the medium shield category... 3' by 2-3'. That's analogous to the 3.x Heavy Shield, at least in terms of shield categories. Small shields were usually round, about 2' diameter. Large shields were the 3.x tower shield 4' by 2-3'.

True, but one shouldn't seek to directly compare 2.x Shield Classifications with 3.x. In the 3.0 PHB, Heavy Shields were Large Shields, they simply removed Medium from the game. The Tower Shield was a new introduction under an old name.


One way to make a shield a viable option is to make it out of admantine. Expensive as all a night with Freyja, but I would rule that it provides DR like armor of the same category (light or heavy). Personally, I'd say all shields provide DR... but I also favor armor-as-DR, so I'm a bit biased.

I would like to see Body Armour as DR, but not Shields. I prefer Shields as cover, even though it is possible to cause damage through a Shield.

I think I would quite happily make the Tower Shield or 'Great Shield' a Two Handed Weapon...

[Roderick_BR]

Quirinus_Obsidian pretty much said it. Use Shield Specialization, and make it and give it a Bashing magic (rises damage from 1d6 to 1d8 plus +1 for attack/damage).

[krossbow]

My view: Add some feats from Iron heroes, a game which FINALLY allows for useful shield use.


(Note: Since iron heroes uses a XXXX feat 1, XXXX feat 2, xxx feat 3 (levels) naming system, the names here are one's I made up)

Offensive shunt: Anytime an enemy misses you, but would of hit your shieldless AC while your using a shield, you toss them offbalance, gaining a +2 to hit them on your next turn (or attack).

Improved offensive shunt: Anytime an enemy misses you but would of hit your shieldless AC, you throw them back, gaining an immidiate AoO against them (with offensive shunt's +2 to hit).

(Personally, I'd simply have it be when someone misses you, as it makes it less complicted, though more powerful).

Dual shield mastery: You may dual wield shields, gaining the AC bonus from both while doing so, even while bashing with them.

[Fizban]

For the debate of shield types: Races of stone has a shield between heavy and tower, +3 AC but you can't bash with it.

I like the idea for parrying, I don't know if you meant it to be unlimited, but I'd have one block/round for everyone, and then feats to improve it. First feat grants a second block/round at -5, second another at -10, and third another at -15, just like good ol' TWF.

Offensive shunt: does that apply to all attacks that round? TJust for you, or everyone that attacks the target? And I agree it should just be if they miss: even if their weapon doesn't hit the shield, you want it to, so you'll put the shield there anyway.

[Bears With Lasers]

The Races of Stone shield renders itself unuseable by being named the Extreme Shield.

I mean, come on. "Dude! My shield is X-TREEEEEEEM! It goes to 11! See the Type R stickers?!"

[Fizban]

That's why I didn't refer to it by name. I prefer to think of it as a really heavy shield. I saw a kite shield that gave a +3 in some book, and a hide (like the armor) shield in another also for +3. I think I'll go look for those.

Edit: Hide Shield in sandstorm, baisically halfway between tower and heavy, less AC but less penalty, can still use for cover.

[erewhon]

Well, the problem with animated shield is that it removes any need for sword and boarding, thus negating the combat style.

That's because you're thinking of sword and board as a seperate style from two weapons fighting. It is not. It just uses funny shaped off-hand weapons that are WAY more flexible, and open up several additional feat trees.

Depending upon feat selection, you can build almost any "fighting style" you want.


This is why many DMs (myself included) don't allow it - though very tiny, there should be some benefit (besides the neglettable +2 ac) from halving your damage output...

So, you must also feel that fighters are overpowered and need to be nerfed? A minority view, that one is. :)



Well, social is really bad for fighters.

Which is why I happen to think a level or two of Bard is a darn good idea for most fighters. Give the big lummoxes some polish! :)


You can roleplay as well as others but nothing mechanically helps you in that. At all. Senses are also bad for fighters.

Well, not always. A +20 Skill Focus item makes ANYBODY good at Diplomacy. :) It's all about the toys!

Same response on the Sense aspect. A cheap little magic item can get a fighter lots of very useful sense effects, except that the huge majority of fighters are so fixated on HITTING REALLY HARD they never bother.

Fighters actually have a very good feat, Blindfighting, for the Sense aspect which is surprisingly useful. I've been meaning for months to write up a feat tree based on Blindfighting. <sigh> So much to do, so little time.



Problem with defense is that any intelligent enemy sees "The fighter defends himself very well, so I can't hit him and he doesn't have too much damage output, so I will just go around him and kill the rogue first". Fighter needs to be offensive enough to make enemies come after him...

Very possible! And as soon as the baddy turns away from the fighter, the fighter cranks up that razored shield and educates the villain on just how badly he has misunderstood the situation he faced. :)

Shields = flexibility. Really. :D

[Bears With Lasers]

I just finished writing up a fighter fix. Off to Homebrew to post it.

[erewhon]

Dual shield mastery: You may dual wield shields, gaining the AC bonus from both while doing so, even while bashing with them.


Wow.

Just... Wow. That would be extremely huge, especially if you allow (as some do) shields to have dual enhancement tracks. (The notion scares the poo outta me, but it is very seductive if it increases shield use.)

Wow. :D

[Bears With Lasers]

Two animated shields. :P

[Cybren]

i figured out the trick. Don't drop the BOARD, drop the SWORD, and use a spiked heavy shield two handed!

[Toliudar]

How about:

Low to mid-level cleric with strength less than 14.

Until magically augmented, he/she isn't losing much by having a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed weapon, and is unlikely to have the dex to want to go finesse. A shield - animated or otherwise - gives a nice bump to AC (especially in combination with magic vestment).

[PinkysBrain]

That isn't a sword and board build though, that's just an armored caster build.

[Leon]

Board and Bonk

[krossbow]

Offensive shunt: does that apply to all attacks that round? TJust for you, or everyone that attacks the target? And I agree it should just be if they miss: even if their weapon doesn't hit the shield, you want it to, so you'll put the shield there anyway.



I believe it worked for all attacks that round in the feat I'm getting it from. For balance reasons, it should probably just be you-- it'd be too powerful if it was for everyone.

[Mike_G]

The thing is, that by chaging PA to 1/1 you nerf the most efficient melee fighting style, thus greatly nerfing melee types. Rather boost two weaponers than nerf two handers...

I don't want to screw melee builds more, but someone once said the test for brokenness is if an option makes all other options foolish to consider. Compared to one handed weapons not to spells, two handers are overpowered. If magic ceased to exist in D&D, the Greatsword Power Attack build would be the brokenest thing on the block.

I just think a world where nobody picks up a one handed weapon because it's so underpowered isn't one I'd care to play in.

So, what's your opinion on Finesse allowing Dex to stack with Str, instead of replace it?

Or even just allow PA with a light weapon. At least the TWF guy would get some benefit from having Power Attack. Making his style even more feat intensive, but maybe more viable.

[Pegasos989]

I don't want to screw melee builds more, but someone once said the test for brokenness is if an option makes all other options foolish to consider. Compared to one handed weapons not to spells, two handers are overpowered. If magic ceased to exist in D&D, the Greatsword Power Attack build would be the brokenest thing on the block.

I just think a world where nobody picks up a one handed weapon because it's so underpowered isn't one I'd care to play in.

So, what's your opinion on Finesse allowing Dex to stack with Str, instead of replace it?

Or even just allow PA with a light weapon. At least the TWF guy would get some benefit from having Power Attack. Making his style even more feat intensive, but maybe more viable.


Well, the rogues think that TWF is extremely good option. It is just that THW seems to be directed at high strenght damage dealers while TWF seems to be directed at rogues and the like. I don't have that bad problem with it.

Anyways, I don't think it is a bad idea to let dex stack with str. Sure, if you have str and dex 18, you get a lot of attack bonus for that one feat, but how many characters have that anyways...

[Matthew]

I wouldn't be too pleased to go back to the (A)D&D 2.x days of Dexterity stacking with Strength. Power Attacking with a Light Weapon I would be happy to endorse, though (though not in two hands, obviously).

[Pegasos989]

Oh, true. The problem with dex and str stacking on finessed weapons would make spiked chain extremely good...

[Cybren]

Don't you see?! The real best idea is to use a spiked heavy shield as a two handed weapon! And you power attack with it!

[Matthew]

I heard you Cybren, it's a better idea than Two Shields, that's for sure.

[Mike_G]

How's about making Power Attack 1/1 with light weapons, and 2/1 with one handed and up?

That helps the sword and board or TWF builds, but doesn't nerf THF.

That way, a fighter could conceivably chose the most popular combo in history and not get laughed out of the forum.

[ILOVEKAREN]

Back in the old days (I go back to '79), 70% of all magic swords were longswords. Now they're only slightly more common (13% of common weapons) than greatswords (10%) or bastard swords (10%).

This had a major effect on character choices when you were starting at low level. Nearly every fighter knew how to use a longsword, because when you started picking up magic weapons, that was the best bet.

Make all the coolest weapons in your games 1-handed weapons, and you'll have characters concentrating on 1H styles.

[Bears With Lasers]

No, you'll have characters using their longswords in two hands.

[Mike_G]

Well, if you let people buy magic items, that goes out the window, and I don't like the idea of forcing a weapon choice that way.

I'd rather let the player decide what he wants to use, and tailor the game to that. If nobody in the party uses a Longsword, I won't have many magic Longswords in treasure. I like to forward the player's choices, not change them.

I think that the choice of THF versus Sword and Shield should be "do I want higher damage or better AC?"

Right now, it's a lot more damage or a little more AC. If the choices were closer, like shields were a huge AC bous, or one handed weapons were just a bit less damage than Two Handed, you'd see more variety, as people chose the concept they liked better, not the obviously superior one.

Either raising the shield AC bonus to something scaling, like 1/2 BAB, or raising the PA for one handers would make it an attractive option. Two handers still ahve a higher base damage, and the 1.5 Str multiplier, so even if One Handed weapons got the same benefit from Power Attack, the Two Hander would be ahead, but maybe not so far ahead that it's silly to take a shield instead.

[Matthew]

If I were going to 'fix' this, I would do so like this:

Short Sword - One Handed 1D6,
Long Sword - One Handed 1D8, Two Handed 1D10,
Great Sword - One Handed 1D10 (Feat Required), Two Handed 1D12 (or whatever),

One Handed Use = 1 x Strength Bonus to Damage
Two Handed Use = 2 x Strength Bonus to Damage

Power Attack = -1 to Hit for +1 Damage in all Cases

Two Handed Fighting Feat = +1 to Hit and +1 to Damage with 'Great Weapons'

Weapon Finesse = All Weapons are Finessable

[erewhon]

Don't you see?! The real best idea is to use a spiked heavy shield as a two handed weapon! And you power attack with it!

No, we see, we're all just struck dumb at the horror of it. :)

I've always liked shields, it's just the ideas being tossed bout here are really, really good. :)

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :)

[erewhon]

I heard you Cybren, it's a better idea than Two Shields, that's for sure.


No, the reason why two shields is such a huge idea is two-fold:

1) Shield Fortifications. There are some VERY nice defensive powers in there.

2) Shield weapons. IF you allow Shield Spikes to have their own enhancement track, you can, in theory, have a single shield with up to +10 enchantment AND a set of shield spikes (or razors, etc) with another +10 in enhancement bonus.

Example: +5 Shield with Arrow Catching, Reflecting, and a few other things crammed in, which has +5 Shield Spikes (defined as a seperate weapon, with a seperate enchantment track) with Defending and Axiomatic and Bane. Then, you could build a SECOND shield and spike set for the other hand, which does all the stuff the first one doesn't.

I've always made the two enchantments tracks stack, but in recent days, have been thinking about reconsidering that choice.

Due to the way the item build rules work, the more stackable enhancement channels you can get, the better off you are, as the cost for a +4 is sixteen times as much for a +1.

Scary.

[Matthew]

Yeah, but Two Weapon Fighting sucks in comparison to Two Handed Fighting and Animated Shields, which I think was the thrust of what he was getting at.

Your damage will suck if you use the enhancements on Shield Spikes to add to AC and Defence.


I like the idea for parrying, I don't know if you meant it to be unlimited, but I'd have one block/round for everyone, and then feats to improve it. First feat grants a second block/round at -5, second another at -10, and third another at -15, just like good ol' TWF.

Yeah, there are a lot of variations possible for introducing a Parry, Block or Dodge Rule and Feats tend to trump the basic limitations of the mechanic.

What has to be decided is how this affects or is affected by the Characters round to round actions. Should he get multiple attacks even when only making Standard Attacks or should that be preceded or followed by a Full Attack Action. Should Two Weapon Fighting Modifiers apply?

The way I run it:

A Character with BAB 1-5 and a Two Handed Weapon may make one Parry before his action, but he is limited to a Move Action in the following Round.
If that same Character has BAB 6-20, he may make more than one Parry, but is limited to Full attack in the Following Round if he does so (where he may make all remaining Attacks)

A Character with BAB 1-5 and Two Weapons may make a free Off Hand Block or Parry (with no penalties) before his action, but loses his Off hand Attack if he takes Full Attack as his following Action. Otherwise he may act normally and without penalty.
If he makes a Primary Hand Block or Parry he is limited to a Move Action or Special Full Attack Action that is made with the Off Hand Weapon at the usual penalties.
If he makes both a Primary Hand and Off Hand Block or Parry he is limited to a Move Action as his following Action.
If that same Character has BAB 6-20 he may make more than one Primary and Off Hand Parry or Block, but is limited to a Full Attack the Following Round (where he may make all remaining Attacks).

An easier alternative would be to limit Characters making an Off Hand Block or Parry to a Full Round Attack in the following Round.

[Iron_Mouse]

How's about making Power Attack 1/1 with light weapons, and 2/1 with one handed and up?

That helps the sword and board or TWF builds, but doesn't nerf THF.

That way, a fighter could conceivably chose the most popular combo in history and not get laughed out of the forum.
Hmm, what's with light weapon 1/1, one handed 1.5/1 and two handed 2/1?

I think I'm going to use that.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. That is an interesting idea.

[erewhon]

Hmm, what's with light weapon 1/1, one handed 1.5/1 and two handed 2/1?

I think I'm going to use that.

Interesting.... :D

Power Attack, in that instance, quickly overwhelms the weapon's damage capability in the light category, but then again, unless you've got Exotics or oversized weapons, the same effect happens with the Two-handers.

In which case, you either stop worrying about the damage die and strictly go for crits and effects, or you maximize the die and stop worrying about Power Attack...

Bumping One-handers to 1.5 for one is an interesting idea, too, and makes Power Attack proportionally more accurate, as well.

Using this progession, 3-ish points of Power Attack roughly equals the weapon base damage for non-exotics in all cases.

Rather symmetrical.

Power Attack usable unarmed? (I'd vote NO, as that's way broken. Non-Monk, 3 points power attack is way more than double base damage, and Power Attack plus Monks is just a bad idea.)

One issue with this is Monks using Exotic weapons (like the Butterfly Sword, for one) that are light or medium weapons yet stil allow them to be considered as unarmed.

Hrrrrrrmmmm.... It WOULD make Sword and Board more attractive.

I think I like it. :D

[Matthew]

Got some bad news for you, it already is:


Power Attack [General]

Prerequisite

Str 13.

Benefit

On your action, before making attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll) for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

Special

If you attack with a two-handed weapon, or with a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, instead add twice the number subtracted from your attack rolls (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#attackRoll). You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#unarmedStrike) or natural weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#naturalWeapons) attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. (Normally, you treat a double weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#doubleWeapons) as a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If you choose to use a double weapon like a two-handed weapon, attacking with only one end of it in a round, you treat it as a two-handed weapon.)
A fighter (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/fighter.htm) may select Power Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.

That's one of the primary reasons it makes no sense that Light Weapons cannot be used in conjunction with Power Attack.

[erewhon]

Got some bad news for you, it already is:



That's one of the primary reasons it makes no sense that Light Weapons cannot be used in conjunction with Power Attack.


Well, lookit that.

That makes utterly no sense whatsoever. :)

Hrrrmmm.

[Bears With Lasers]

Power Attack + Monks isn't broken or even that good.

[erewhon]

Power Attack + Monks isn't broken or even that good.

Normally, yes, because Monks have low BAB and a lot of trouble getting more.

BUT, the presence of Exotic Weapons usable as if the Monk is Unarmed such as the Butterfly Sword make it uncomfortably viable again. A +5 Butterfly Sword Flurry is interesting....

The weapon damage is a base d6, +5 for the enchantment and a potention additional +5 or +8 for Power Attack to move their BAB to equal their normal unarmed BAB, so we compare apples to apples.

1d6 is 3.5 on average. That works out to 13.5 (4d6 equivalent) to 16.5 (a smidge under 5d6) per strike.

I must ponder upon this. Hrrrrrrm. :(

I suspect it might be balanced, but it gives Monks considerable heft and flexibility.... Especially if you start tossing in Banes and energy attacks and the like.

[Bosh]

Yeah its not like giving something that would make monks hit LESS often would be especially helpful for them...

I do like the idea of giving one-handed non-light weapons x2 power attack damage. That would help sword and board fighters a lot without helping builds that don't need help (TWFing rogue etc.). The only thing I'd be worried about is that with that rule something along the lines of a charging TWFing character with the right feats (dual charge, leap attack, oversized two-weapon fighting and shock trooper) could deal absolutely sickening damage.

Because of that maybe it'd be better to just give primary hand weapons x1.5 power attack, off-hand x.5 power attack and two-handed x2 power attack (no matter wether weapons are light or not) and let shield AC scale with BaB at least a bittle bit. That should fix short n boarders just fine without overpowering anyone else.

[Fizban]

Don't remember where I heard it, but apparently two-handed power attack was originall meant to be 3/2 ratio, which makes since following the way the str bonus works. But then they made it 2/1 "so the math would be easier", or so the guy said. Anyway, Bosh's idea works better in the current eviroment.

[Matthew]

Yeah, that rumour has done the rounds. Seems probable. Making Power Attack with Light Weapons 0.5, One Handed 1.0 and Two Handed 1.5 would be quite reasonable, as would 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0.

[krossbow]

Hmmm... after looking it over, this is what I think would work (keep in mind, these are thought experiments, feel free to tear apart):

A. get rid of animated shields. This will help, though more needs to be done.

B. Shields add to touch AC as well. For all the pictures we get of the guy blocking the magic ray with a shield, it sure doesn't seem to make sense. In addition, they should give a +1 or +2 to bonus to fighting defensively, and a + 2 bonus to reflex saves. However, this should probably be a magic enhancement to make sense. yes, I know there is a feat that adds it to touch AC, but a magic enhancement makes more sense, as a normal metal shield shouldn't be able to block a death beam, but a shiny magic one would.


C. Shields should add a +1 or so to reflex saves; since you have partial cover from it, it should help. Also, maybe stack this with a required magic enhancement for B.




feats: These taken and modified from iron heroes (a low magic game) to work in D&D, and allow for offensive use. Also, blatantly stole a couple other suggestions in the thread. Hey, best form of flattery, yeah :smallwink: ?


imp. Shield bash: as is.

Shield bash mastery (prerequisites: Imp shield bash) : Increases shield bash damage die by one level.

Dual shield mastery (prequisites: Imp. shield bash, shield bash mastery): You may wield a second shield and add half of it's protection bonus to your AC. If your shields have different protection values, you half the lowest one. This includes all magical enhancements as well (a +4 heavy shield with a value of 6 would be halved to 3). You can dual wield them, or defend with one and fight with the other.

Offensive shunt: If an enemy misses you while using a shield, you gain a +2 to your next attack.

Offensive shunt mastery: If the opponent misses you with an attack while using a shield, you may make an immidiate attack of opportunity against him with the +2 from offensive shunt. If you hit, he is unbalanced, and his AC drops by 2 till the end of the next round; he also suffers a -2 on attack rolls.




Feel free to tear apart.

[Pegasos989]

C. Shields should add a +1 or so to reflex saves; since you have partial cover from it, it should help.

"I almost fell down after I walked to the slippery grease!"
"What saved you?"
"My shield!"
"..."

"I almost fell down to the pit trap!"
"What saved you?"
"My shield!"
"..."


I could propably go on for a while, but you get the idea. The reflex bonus should be limited to damaging effects, I think.

[krossbow]

Sorry; it should be clarified to have wording like evasion does.

"On any reflex save in which a successful save halves damage, a magic shield adds a +1 to their save"


that work?

[Pegasos989]

Sorry; it should be clarified to have wording like evasion does.

"On any reflex save in which a successful save halves damage, a magic shield adds a +1 to their save"


that work?

Yeah.

I could concider going as far as saying "adds it's enchantment bonus to their save"

[tarbrush]

How about doubling up the combat expertise bonus for using a shield? Power attack with a 2h weapon gets you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio, combat expertise gives you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio.

[Bears With Lasers]

How about doubling up the combat expertise bonus for using a shield? Power attack with a 2h weapon gets you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio, combat expertise gives you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio.

I've seen a couple people come up with that now. I think I'll be adding it as a Simple Art to my fighter fix.

[Matthew]

Not a bad idea at all, though, it does mean Shield Users need Intelligence 13. i still think Shields need to do more than add +X AC, but this does seem like a good alternative.

[Bears With Lasers]

I'm working on Advanced and Complex arts that would help--Advanced might let the shield grant some amount of concealment (10% for small, 20% for large), Complex would... I'd have to think of something.

[Bosh]

How about doubling up the combat expertise bonus for using a shield? Power attack with a 2h weapon gets you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio, combat expertise gives you a 2/1 bonus/bab ratio.
Clever, quite clever.
I'd be worried about players using that for 100% tank builds with no offensive powerful whatsoever though...

[Pegasos989]

Clever, quite clever.
I'd be worried about players using that for 100% tank builds with no offensive powerful whatsoever though...

They wouold stop quite soon when the third monster just walks around them...

[Captain van der Decken]

:eek:

That's even less fun than healbitch. Just sitting there, not being hit. Of course, a cohort would do it.