PDA

View Full Version : What about the Shield?



henebry
2007-01-26, 09:57 AM
There's been a lively debate lately about how to fix Two-Weapon Fighting to make it more attractive. Talya recently recommended including Two Weapon Defense as a benefit of taking TWF ("Why Two Weapon Fighting Sucks" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31844)), and I suggested allowing double-wielders to purchase an identical enchantment for their secondary weapon at 1/2 price ("Two Weapon Fighting and Magic Weapons" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32697)).

In the course of the latter thread, MrNexx brought up the plight of shield-wielders, pointing out that while in real life fighters found the combination of Sword & Board optimal, in D&D it is the least common fighting style.

The problem, Daggaz, is that TWF is sub-optimal under the rules. You've got a -2 to all your attacks, and your off-hand weapon either can't take advantage of power attack, or you've got even larger penalties, or you've blown even more feats on the style.

On the other hand, someone who's spent far less gold on their single, two-handed weapon, and one feat to use Power Attack, can usually out-perform you. If they take the same -2 to attacks that you get "for free", they get a +4 to damage... which is about what you'll get out of that second weapon you're carrying before enchantment. Yes, you have two chances to hit, and thus two chances to critical, but that's why people generally only take TWF if they have sources of extra damage, such as sneak attack... it becomes far more effective if you're getting bonus dice.

Meanwhile, you have sword-and-board, as its called, which is clearly inferior to all of them, despite being the most common style for a reason.

Indeed, sword-and-board becomes an even less attractive option if we incorporate Tayla's fix for TWF (offering a +1 Shield bonus to AC to the double-wielding character), for that makes a light shield essentially redundant. What special option might be offered to the shield-wielder to compensate?

Piccamo suggested, in response to MrNexx, that shield-wielders (and to a lesser extent TWF characters) gain access to a Shield skill, with which they could parry incoming blows:

I do wish that traditional Sword & Board were more prevalent, which is why I'm working on a home-brewed D20 system that is compatible with DnD classes. I was thinking of creating a Shield Skill that you use to parry attacks with the shield, though it would probably use an attack of opportunity.



SHIELD (DEX)

Check: You may parry incoming attacks. A succesful check lets you take half damage from an incoming ranged or melee attack. A success by 5 or more lets you take no damage. The shield skill is an opposed check; the DC to mitigate damage is equal to your attacker's attack roll. You gain a bonus to your check based on what you have equipped in your offhand, as follows:
{table=head] Equipment|Skill Modifier
One-handed Weapon|+0
Light Weapon|+1
Light Shield|+2
Heavy Shield|+4
Animated Shield|-2*[/table]*Because you don't actually hold on to the shield it is harder to intercept incoming attacks with it.

Action: Immediate. A shield check is used in place of an attack of opportunity.

Special: A use of the Shield skill uses up one attack of opportunity for this round.

This proposal didn't get much of a response (and it was a bit off-topic), so I'm reposting it here, together with an alternative of my own. But my real aim is to get the input of experienced players and DMs.

Piccamo's proposal encourages sword-and-board fighting by offering shield-wielders access to a special ability. This is the right approach, but I don't like the idea of adding yet another dice roll to the combat round. In the spirit of the AC system (which resolves defensive capabilities (Dex, armor strength, etc.) to a single value) I'd propose giving shield-wielders an additional bonus when fighting defensively.

But this would have to be done carefully, so as not to overshadow the feat Combat Expertise:


Total Defense: You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round.
Fighting Defensively: You can choose to fight defensively when taking the attack action (or the full attack action). If you do so, you take a -4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round.
Combat Expertise:[General] When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee, you can take a penalty of as much as -5 on your attack roll and add the same number (+5 or less) as a dodge bonus to your Armor Class. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until your next action.

I suggest that shield-wielders take an additional +1 to AC when Fighting Defensively (-4 on attacks, +3 on AC) and an additional +1 to AC when using Combat Expertise (-X on attacks, +X+1 on AC, where X = 5 or less).

Here, you will note, I am treating all types of shields identically so as to keep this benefit relatively small. Even so, I'm a bit concerned that the rule change might be abusive when used with Combat Expertise.

As always, I'm grateful to your thoughts and comments. And this time I promise to make no claims to special knowledge based on Excel and statistics. (Sorry DeathQuaker!) In your responses, please keep in mind that I am a DM who is concerned that none of his players (with their manifold fighting styles based on role-playing and not just roll-playing) suffer at some disadvantage due to an inequity in the combat system.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 10:12 AM
There have been a number of suggestions to improve the lot of Weapon and Shield Fighters over the last couple of weeks. They fall into two camps: either increased Armour Class or new Blocking Mechanic. Weapon and Shield Fighters are closely linked to Two Weapon Fighting and the solutions ought really to interact.

Armour Class Boosts:

1) Defensive Two Weapon Fighting stacks with Light and Heavy Shields.

2) Shield users gain double AC Bonus when using Combat Expertise or Improved Combat Expertise (i.e. a 2:1 Armour Class Bonus to Attack Bonus ratio)

3) Shield users gain double Armour Class Bonus when Fighting Defensively or Total Defence (i.e. +4 and +8 respectively).

Blocking Mechanic

Some sort of opposed roll limited by Attacks of Opportunity or Attacks in general. This mechanic has been suggested a number of times over the years, and is rooted in the 2.x Block Mechanic. It does not appeal to everyone (i.e. I have encountered strong opposition to it before on these forums).

Note

It is important to bear in mind that there are already a number of (not very good) feats in place to give bonuses to Shield users.

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 10:15 AM
I'm obviously in the camp of a block mechanic. The problem with adding AC is that its easily mitigated.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 10:27 AM
Some other relevant previous Threads:

Gaming D20

Two Weapon Fighting, Shields and 3.x (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22990)
Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30734)
Does the Fighter Need Fixing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23175&page=2)
New Skill: Parry (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25404)

Homebrew

(My solutions based on input from the Two Weapon Fighting Thread)

Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31337)
Two Weapon Defence (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31338)
Mobile Two Weapon Fighting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31316)
Even Handed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31256)

Previous Proposals (of mine)

Need help balancing an Expertise Fighter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11369)



PARRY [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13, Combat Expertise
Benefit: During your action, when using a Weapon, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 Parry bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action.
Special: A fighter may select Block as one of his fighter bonus feats.



BLOCK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: None
Benefit: During your action, when using a Shield, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 Block bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action.
A condition that makes you lose your Shield bonus to Armor Class also makes you lose your Block bonus.
Special: A fighter may select Block as one of his fighter bonus feats.

[/URL]
Combat Expertise, Power Attack and Combat Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11369)



PARRY [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13, Combat Expertise, Dexterity 13.
Benefit: During your action and when wielding a weapon, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 Parry Bonus** to Armour Class against attacks from that opponent.
Special: A fighter may select Parry as one of his fighter bonus feats.



COUNTER ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Intelligence 13, Combat Expertise, Dexterity 13, Parry, BAB +6
Benefit: Whenever an opponent designated by the Parry Feat misses his attack against you, he provokes an Attack of Opportunity from you; this counts against the usual limit.
Special: A fighter may select Counter Attack as one of his fighter bonus feats.


Flat Footed and Shield Bonus to Armour Class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2)


Hey again folks, just a thought on the Shield in 3.5 and a way to make it a more attractive option in combat and D&D for those of us who feel the Shield got ripped off.
Warning: Some people may not like this rule; to them I say it is, of course, absolutely optional, but I take their concerns on board. One needs to be aware that it does change the balance of Two Handed Weapon Fighting, Weapon and Shield Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting. It's just a thought and may not work for 3.5. This isn't the first time a rule like this has been suggested, check out 'Fixing the Fighter' and 'New Rule ~ Parry' (where the variant suggested was very badly received) threads. Moreover, something similar was suggested in the pages of Dungeon Magazine. It's just a suggestion.

The Active Block (Version 1):

Any Character making a Shield bash attack may hold that attack and before his next action use it to attempt to block one enemy attack that hits his AC (Including Missile Attacks).
Before damage is rolled the player attempts to block the enemy attack by trying to equal whatever the opponents attack roll was [+modifiers] by making an attack with his Shield (incurring all the usual penalties and bonuses for TWF). If he equals or exceeds his opponent's score the attack is blocked and no damage is caused.

The Active Block (Version 2):

Any Shield bearing Character (who has his shield readied and is aware of his opponent) may once per round attempt to block one enemy attack that has hit his AC (Including Missile Attacks).
Before damage is rolled the player attempts to block the enemy attack by trying to equal whatever the opponents attack roll was [+modifiers] by making an attack with his Shield (incurring all the usual penalties and bonuses for TWF). If he equals or exceeds his opponent's score the attack is blocked and no damage is caused. In his following action (no matter whether he succeeded or failed) the character is treated as having made a Shield Bash Attack that turn, losing his Shield AC bonus and taking the appropriate penalty to his primary attack. The character may find himself in a continuous state of having no Shield AC bonus if he blocks every round (Note: Improved Shield Bash will prevent this loss of AC).

Note: the fact that the PC is assumed to be TWF in his next action means that he may only take the Full Attack Action in his next turn; this is not a rule designed with Bucklers in mind.

Additional Option 1: Block may be restricted to characters with Improved Shield Bash to 'power it down.'

Additional Option 2: Block may be made a Feat, if it is felt necessary: [i.e. 'Block', prerequisite Shield Proficiency, etc... with all the improved versions that may imply... i.e Improved Block, gain +2 on Block Rolls and so on]

Additional Option 3: The normal Shield AC bonus may be restricted to use against a limited number of opponents to help 'balance things out' (I suggest three to four).

Additional Option 4: Successful melee blocks may result in damage being done directly to the shield as per the normal rules, potentially wrecking the thing and this optional tactic.

Potential Problem 1: More dice rolling in combat; some people will like this, others will not; if you want to use this optional rule you'll just have to suck it up.

Potential Problem 2: If everybody and his dog is capable of doing this (as is implied), everybody and his dog probably will, which means more book keeping and dice rolling. One solution is to assume all minions 'take ten', meaning they will almost never get to make a successful block, as their AC almost always outstrips their modified AB+10. Shield bearing minions can be given a 'one shot' AC if by some miracle it does.

Potential Problem 3: Defensive Fighting, Combat Expertise and Total Defense create problems for this rule as they all modify your attack in a negative way and thus your Block. I would not be inclined to apply attack penalties to Block for assuming a more defensive stance and in the case of Total Defence, I would allow Block anyway. This may not be to the taste of all.

I'd appreciate it if responses to this post did not take the form of 'I think this rule is lame because...'

Constructive criticism only, please.

[URL="http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2"]

Telonius
2007-01-26, 11:00 AM
To Piccamo's idea ... I like it, generally. It might make more sense to break it up into two different skills, though; Shield (STR) and Parry (DEX). Shield would only be useful with shields, but Parry would be for light or melee weapons. Shield would be a class skill for Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, Knights, and whatever other classes seem appropriate. Parry would be a class skill for Rangers, Rogues, and Monks, and whatever other classes seem appropriate. (Monk unarmed strike counts as a Light weapon for purposes of the check). Using the skill requires a readied action, and is good once a round (you can only shield or parry the next attack). New Feats: Improved Shield (Requires BAB +6) and Improved Parry (Requires Dex 12) let you Shield/Parry once a round without readying, but it counts as your next move action. (Rogue gets Improved Parry free at 6th level). Greater Shield (BAB+10)/Parry(Dex 16) lets you use Shield/Parry once a round as a swift action. Rogue gets it free at 14th level. Supreme Shield (BAB+15)/Parry (Dex 18) lets you use it a number of times equal to your STR bonus (shield) or Dex bonus (parry) per round; Rogue gets it free at 20th. (Yay usefulness for 20th level rogues!)

EDIT: I've put this as a readied action to start out, to make it a little more difficult for people to use it, and make it very melee-focused. If you make it exclusively Dex- and AoO-based, you will see a lot more people taking Combat Reflexes and using other cheese to try to block anything that tries to hit them that round. This way, it plays to the Fighter's strength (high STR), as well as the Rogue's strength (high DEX), letting both of them block things without nerfing either. If you want to be able to do this, it's got to be a little difficult and a little feat-intensive; otherwise casters (with their usually-high dex) will get even more out of hand with fighters being unable to hit them.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 11:02 AM
How would you address the Skill Point problem?

Golthur
2007-01-26, 11:04 AM
I advocate the x1.5 bonus for fighting defensively with a shield, and x2 for total defense, along with a mechanism to allow them to boost their AC beyond the +2 that the shield allows (like a Shield Mastery sort of thing) - this bonus also should multiply when fighting defensively or doing total defense. A sword-n-boarder should be on the far defense end of the defense vs. offense curve.

Not to plug, but the system in my sig has a lot of stuff like that in the Armour maneuver section. They could easily be turned into feats if upgraded a bit in power.

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 11:05 AM
How would you address the Skill Point problem?

I generally like giving no class less than 4+int for skill points. I also give a skill point per level that must be used in a knowledge, profession, or craft skill (to reflect that people actually have lives). The biggest problem with creating 2 skills is that you bloat the skill system even more (which needs to be compressed as is, i.e. MS & Hide merged into Stealth).


I advocate the x1.5 bonus for fighting defensively with a shield, and x2 for total defense, along with a mechanism to allow them to boost their AC beyond the +2 that the shield allows (like a Shield Mastery sort of thing) - this bonus also should multiply when fighting defensively or doing total defense. A sword-n-boarder should be on the far defense end of the defense vs. offense curve.

Not to plug, but the system in my sig has a lot of stuff like that in the Armour maneuver section. They could easily be turned into feats if upgraded a bit in power.

The problem with giving more AC is all the ways to mitigate it entirely. Furthermore, in an opposed rolls system the player may choose when to use the ability, thus using it when necessary and not using it to get his AoO's or regular attacks.

Telonius
2007-01-26, 11:19 AM
I generally like giving no class less than 4+int for skill points. I also give a skill point per level that must be used in a knowledge, profession, or craft skill (to reflect that people actually have lives). The biggest problem with creating 2 skills is that you bloat the skill system even more (which needs to be compressed as is, i.e. MS & Hide merged into Stealth).



The problem with giving more AC is all the ways to mitigate it entirely. Furthermore, in an opposed rolls system the player may choose when to use the ability, thus using it when necessary and not using it to get his AoO's or regular attacks.

Hm, I see what you're saying... perhaps just one skill/feat set then, with the character choosing which stat (str or dex) to use?

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 11:21 AM
Just give it Strength as the associated ability and create a feat that allows you to use dexterity for purposes of the skill.

Golthur
2007-01-26, 11:23 AM
The problem with giving more AC is all the ways to mitigate it entirely. Furthermore, in an opposed rolls system the player may choose when to use the ability, thus using it when necessary and not using it to get his AoO's or regular attacks.
Yes, touch attacks are a problem - and not an easy one to solve, either. I'd guess it depends on the particular effect whether or not a touch attack would count shield or not.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I love opposed parry/block systems. Heck, I played BRP Cthulhu for a long, long time, so it's not like I'm not used to the mechanic :smile:

Matthew
2007-01-26, 11:29 AM
I just don't see why it should need to be a skill. Locking it into Base Attack Bonus progression just seems more sensible to me and less intrusive.

If, however, you are modifying Skills anyway, then this is less of a problem. Indeed, for my own House Ruled (A)D&D games Base Attack Bonus (subdivided into several Weapon Proficiencies and linked to Parry and Block), Saves (linked to a Dodge Mechanic) and Skills / Non Weapon Proficiencies are all handled as part of the same 'Skill / Proficiency System'.

Truwar
2007-01-26, 11:30 AM
I would simply allow your shield bonus to add to AC when flat footed. It is a much less cumbersome way ro give the shield a bit more oomph. There is already a feat that allows you to add your shiled bonus to your touch AC.

The Light Shield could use some help though. I posses neither the AC bonus of the heavy shield nor the flexibility of the buckler.

Telonius
2007-01-26, 11:34 AM
Hmm, one other possible problem I see with this.

DM: The titan brings down his hammer of doom upon you! Attack bonus +20

Halfling Rogue (Level 18, carrying a dagger): I parry. Shield bonus +26 (21 ranks, +5 dex).

There's gotta be some bonuses and penalties for size difference.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 11:36 AM
If you use Base Attack Bonus instead of creating a new Skill, there will be...

Current Shield Feats:

Active Shield Defence
Agile Shield Fighter
Block Arrow
Divine Shield
Improved Shield Bash
Improved Shield Snare
Improved Shield Mate
Parrying Shield
Shield Charge
Shield Slam
Shield Sling
Shield Snare
Shield Specialisation
Shield Wall
Shield Ward
Shield and Pike Style
Shield Mate

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 11:39 AM
If you use it as a BAB rather than a skill you may as well apply the special size modifiers (+4 for large / -4 for small, etc). That mechanic is already in the game.

Matthew:
Could you PM or post your system for turning BAB into a skill rather than what it is now?

MrNexx
2007-01-26, 12:09 PM
Actually, I've wondered if several of the "flat bonus" feats might not be better as +X per Y levels feats. Weapon Focus, for example; +1 per 5 five levels. Dodge the same. Most +X feats really aren't worth it in the long run. That's why people hate Toughness; +3 HP isn't much to crow about. Improved Toughness, with +1 HP per level, is better after level 3.

Ad res, I rather like the idea of a shield skill, limited by AoOs. In that case, I would allow the shield to deal with Touch Attacks; it goes a long way towards evening the caster/non-caster divide if there's a defense against touch attacks (including Ranged Touch Attacks); any effects happen to the shield, not the character. I'd also suggest a feat, with a prereq of Combat Reflexes, that adds an additional 1 or 2 AoO.

This makes shield use a far more attractive option... not required, because you can still get substantial damage benefits from going two-handed, but certainly worth-while in single combat, and worth considering otherwise.

Telonius
2007-01-26, 12:11 PM
I you use Base Attack Bonus instead of creating a new Skill, there will be...

Current Shield Feats:

Active Shield Defence
Agile Shield Fighter
Block Arrow
Divine Shield
Improved Shield Bash
Improved Shield Snare
Improved Shield Mate
Parrying Shield
Shield Charge
Shield Slam
Shield Sling
Shield Snare
Shield Specialisation
Shield Wall
Shield Ward
Shield and Pike Style
Shield Mate

Even if a fighter got all of those feats for free at first level, I would still have to seriously consider my options about being a sword-and-board fighter in 3.5. If you had none of those feats, but the possibility of entirely negating one or more hits per round, it would be much closer to worthwhile.

Tying the Shield/Parry ability to BAB is definitely an option. My concern there is that it has the potential of leaving out two classes that I see as having parry as an iconic ability: the Monk and the Rogue. Monk, because they're all about dodging out of the way of weapons and redirecting force; and Rogue, for rapier fighting. Both of those classes only have 3/4 BAB; I'd like for them to get the strongest version of the ability. I'd also prefer that Cleric and Druid would only get the weakest version of this ability - they really don't need any more help.

Matthew
2007-01-26, 12:41 PM
Oh yeah, those Feats by and large suck, absolutely. We have to take them into account, though.

The problems BAB progression poses for the Monk and Rogue with regard to Parry and Block are problems also for Attack (i.e. they are at the root of combat problems for these Character Classes). To my mind, Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians should be more skilled than them in defence and offence. However, there is obviously room for a great many Feats and House Rules that would allow us to even the field somewhat, Weapon Finesse is an obvious candidate to allow for Parry and Block, as is the Monk's Wisdom Modifier.

Piccamo:
I am not sure how useful it would be to you, as it is tied into a House Ruled (A)D&D Game. Essentially, there are ten combat skills - Spear, Dagger, Shield, Sword, Axe, Mace, Bow, Box, Wrestle and Throw, each of which encompass a number of weapons. Characters improve these as skills. A seperate Combat Skill Point Pool would probably have to be used in D&D 3.x, in my House Ruled game Skill Points are assigned more or less seperately from level progression, though level caps are retained.

Essentially, the -4 Non Proficiency Penalty is gradually bought out via Skill Points. So, for instance, a Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian has 40 Combat Skill Points:

Spear +4
Dagger +4
Shield +4
Sword +4
Axe +4
Mace +4
Bow +4
Box +4
Wrestle +4
Throw +4

+4 = BAB +1, +5 = BAB +2, +6 = BAB +3, etc..

Other Classes would have less Combat Skill Points, depending on how many you wanted them to have and X number per level.
Martial, Simple and Exotic Proficiencies would be removed in favour of Combat Skill Points that could be bought as Feats.

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 12:53 PM
Thanks. I wasn't looking for anything for a direct lift, just for ideas. That seems pretty cool and using this, Shield could be a combat skill.

Telonius
2007-01-26, 01:04 PM
Another possibility would be to use the Weapon Group Feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/weaponGroupFeats.htm#weaponGroupFeats)variant, and add Shields as a group. Taking the Shield group would allow you to use the Parry/Shield option. The Light Blades weapon group, as well as the Monk's unarmed strike, might grant automatic Parry/Shield.

Piccamo
2007-01-26, 01:15 PM
Actually, I've wondered if several of the "flat bonus" feats might not be better as +X per Y levels feats. Weapon Focus, for example; +1 per 5 five levels. Dodge the same. Most +X feats really aren't worth it in the long run. That's why people hate Toughness; +3 HP isn't much to crow about. Improved Toughness, with +1 HP per level, is better after level 3.

Another idea is to add ranks to these feats. Allow spending Skill Points to "rank up" a feat.

Weapon Focus rank 1 would give +1 to attack (not too bad at low levels).
Weapon Focus rank 2 would offer +2 to attack at the cost of 4 skill points.

Some limiting factor would have to be put into place, like "May not exceed 1/4 the character's HD."

That may just be my love for an entirely skill based system talking, though.

Talya
2007-01-26, 11:03 PM
A lot of neat ideas here. I'm not against giving shields more "oomph," per se. In fact, I love the idea of adding shield AC to flatfooted/touch AC. I like the idea of a blocking mechanic too. There's a few things, though, that will still make shields a better defensive choice than two weapon defense (even when including it with TWF.) The primary one of them is shield enhancements. a 2ac heavy shield is less than 3 levels of TWD, until you start adding enhancements to the shield, up to an additional +5 armor class...and that's a shield bonus, so it stacks with everything other than more shield bonuses.

Yes, a dual weilder could use a defending weapon, but so can the sword and board weilder, and (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think two defending weapons can stack.

If I were to do anything else to a shield, i'd be tempted to allow them to provide it's base shield AC as a "cover" bonus just like tower shields do as well.

Matthew
2007-01-27, 08:04 AM
I think multiple defending weapons stack by the RAW, Talya:



Defending
A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus) to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#freeActions), the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.
Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#craftMagicArmsAndArmor), shield (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shield.htm) or shield of faith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOfFaith.htm); Price +1 bonus.

Quite a potential bonus for Multi Limbed opponents, though. A Marilith could potentially get +30 to Armour Class from six +5 Defending Weapons... limited by the Dungeon Master's allowance for Free Actions, of course.

Thomas
2007-01-27, 10:51 AM
I think multiple defending weapons stack by the RAW, Talya:

It's an unnamed bonus, but I'd rule that it's "from the same source." Two divine grace abilities don't stack, so why would two defending abilities stack?

It's a rules interpretation, though, so it's each DM's call, obviously.

MrNexx
2007-01-27, 11:56 AM
Actually, wouldn't that be an enhancement bonus from a defending weapon?

Thomas
2007-01-27, 12:23 PM
The description, above, says "a bonus that stacks with all others" - not "an enhancement bonus to AC."

Treating it as a direct enhancement bonus to AC might be a good idea, though, since that'd prevent it from stacking (good-bye, +5 defending armor & shield spikes); and I can't think of anything else that gives a direct enhancement bonus to AC (instead of an enhancement bonus to the shield bonus, armor bonus, or natural armor bonus, all of which would still stack with a direct enhancement bonus to AC).

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-27, 04:24 PM
Whenever an attack misses against an opponent using a shield in my games, the attacker has to make a balance check (DC= opponent's AC) or become flat-footed until the start of his next turn, due to having his attack deflected, opening up a weakness in his defenses. I also make shield bash a free feat and I'm thinking about making harpoon and bow-gun shields available to my players, letting them instantly switch to ranged fighting when necessary.