And now...Shields!

[Indoril]

So I was digging through my homebrew folder (actually folder is innaccurate, I have a homebrew file...a single gargantuan word file that I'm in the process of organizing) and I found the feats I made up when I decided shields in D&D are stupid. A knight with a shield in the Middle Ages was much better off than than represented by the insignificant bonuses granted by shields and the Shield Specialization feat in the Player's Handbook II (which I have included here modified to fit the style I was aiming for, the original is also here (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Shield_Specialization,all)).

I could rant for several pages about how much WotC's shields enrage me though. Here are the feats I spoke of. I figured I'd go in the direction of the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats and turn it into a viable combat style. Tell me what you think, and post anything you think could/should be changed.

Update #2
This is the complete variant, reworked taking some suggestions throughout the thread. Continue to post any suggestions you might have.

[Caewil]

Rather feat heavy, actually. I too agree that shields need to be made better, but a +1 for the cost of a feat? Honestly not worth it. A few +s here and there aren't going to make it as effective as a 2 hander build.

[Indoril]

Well two hander builds are effective for dishing out damage. This feat string would be effective for being a meat shield.

These would be feats taken by your proverbial tank. A fighter who doesn't need to deal a whole lot of damage, he just needs to be good at getting in the way of damage and not dying.

So while the greataxe-wielding, power-attacking half orc with 22 Str is butchering the gargantuan monstrous spider, you can sit here with your AC of 35 and keep the nine-headed hydra off of the healer long enough for the aforementioned half-orc to come over and butcher the hydra.

Also note that these would be five of the 18 feats that a fighter ends up getting, and that isn't counting one feat for being human or any feats for taking flaws. You could match these up with the Weapon Focus/Specialization feats and Power Attack and you'd have a fighter dealing a respectable amount of damage while taking much, much less than his two-handed weapon counterpart.


...but a +1 for the cost of a feat?

I had actually reduced that from +2 (Shield Spec.) and subsequently +4 (Greater Shield Spec.). Do you think that might be worht a feat or two?

[Behold_the_Void]

Do these still function with Animated Shields?

[Indoril]

Do these still function with Animated Shields?


I...actually that hadn't crossed my mind. It wouldn't make any sense, but I can't think of a reason why not. Let me go look up the animated enchant.

[magic8BALL]

Rather feat heavy, actually. I too agree that shields need to be made better, but a +1 for the cost of a feat? Honestly not worth it.

Ahh... two feats... you gotta have shield focus to get shield specialisation...

Why not follow what WotC did with heavy armor?
Heavy Armor Optimization (from Races of Stone), reduce armor check by 1 AND increase AC bonus by 1. The Greater version has higher prereqs, decreases the check penalty by 2, and stacks with Heavy Armor Optimization!

Using this as a base, and applying to shields you get:

Shield Optimization [General]
You have trained extensively in the correct use of shields.
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, BAB +4
Benefit: When wielding a shield you are proficient with, lessen the armor check penalty by 1 and increase the shield bonus 1. These benefits do not apply to bucklers.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Optimization as a bonus feat.

Greater Shield Optimization [General]
You have mastered in the correct use of shields.
Prerequisites: Shield Optimization, BAB +8
Benefit: When wielding a shield you are proficient with, lessen the armor check penalty by 2 and increase the shield bonus 1. These benefts stack with Shield Optimization, for a total lessoning of the armor check penalty of three, and an increase to the shield bonus of 2. These benefits do not apply to bucklers.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Shield Optimization as a bonus feat.

I think this is more worth it. And Im not sure about a shield granting a defection bonus either. As for animated shields... I'm more and more inclined to think they should be given the boot. Use a shield or dont.

[Indoril]

Do these still function with Animated Shields?


The animated enchant reads "Upon command, an animated shield floats within 2 feet of the wielder, protecting her as if she were using it herself but freeing up both her hands." (DMG page 218)

So...yes. They do. Such is the power of magic I guess...

[Indoril]

Ahh... two feats... you gotta have shield focus to get shield specialisation...

Why not follow what WotC did with heavy armor?
Heavy Armor Optimization (from Races of Stone), reduce armor check by 1 AND increase AC bonus by 1. The Greater version has higher prereqs, decreases the check penalty by 2, and stacks with Heavy Armor Optimization!

Using this as a base, and applying to shields you get:

Shield Optimization [General]
You have trained extensively in the correct use of shields.
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, BAB +4
Benefit: When wielding a shield you are proficient with, lessen the armor check penalty by 1 and increase the shield bonus 1. These benefits do not apply to bucklers.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Optimization as a bonus feat.

Greater Shield Optimization [General]
You have mastered in the correct use of shields.
Prerequisites: Shield Optimization, BAB +8
Benefit: When wielding a shield you are proficient with, lessen the armor check penalty by 2 and increase the shield bonus 1. These benefts stack with Shield Optimization, for a total lessoning of the armor check penalty of three, and an increase to the shield bonus of 2. These benefits do not apply to bucklers.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Shield Optimization as a bonus feat.

I think this is more worth it. And Im not sure about a shield granting a defection bonus either.

You know, I meant to put half Dex modifer as a shield bonus to AC. Apologies, it's 3am here and I'm tired. I'll go change that now.

Also hows this. My original version of Shield Mastery had full Dex modifier as a shield bonus to AC, but I lessened it because I thought that was too broken. For such a feat heavy build, would that be more worth it?

[Icewalker]

I agree with magic8BALL and Arachnid on this, they are a little too weak, you should increase them. 8BALLs suggestions for those combined feats are good, they look more even to me, maybe even an additional +1 to AC from em. that +2 to AC from 2 feats isn't going to bring you to the aforementioned 35 AC (real good fighter (10 +4dex +2hvy shield +2 specialization +10(magic)fullplate comes to 28, and thats with +2 Full Plate.)

[Indoril]

I went ahead and increased all the AC bonuses to what I had them at when I originally made these, as that seems to be the consensus all around. Tell me what you think now.

[Icewalker]

They look realistic to me, as well as balanced, though I'm not sure of that. I have a question though: Does Shield Mastery stack with Greater Shield Specialization? then you have fighters with 18 dex getting a +10 from their heavy shields.

[Indoril]

Level 16 fighters, anyways. And that's right about how effective shields should be. I think they should stack, but if it proves to be unbalanced that way then I'll change that.

[magic8BALL]

...what about the poor old psychic warrior? or the barbarian for that matter? do they still need to put up with "poorly done shield rules"? Why cant a TWF ranger who uses a shield bash as a weapon get these feats? or a cleric? Seems too exclusive to say that fighters are the only people who care about self-preservation to me...

[Indoril]

Well the weapon specializations and greater focus are only allowed to fighters of 4th, 8th, and 12th level. Nobody's ever asked questions about that I don't think.

You know though, I actually don't see any reasoning why the other combat classes would be denied the weapon specializations. Unless someone can present a legitimate reason why I shouldn't...
Fighter level 4th, 8th, 12th, and 16th will be changed to...
BAB +4, +8, +12, and +16

[Cybren]

wouldn't getting a shield bonus equal to your dex mode...overlap and not stack with the shields actual shield bonus to AC?

[Indoril]

wouldn't getting a shield bonus equal to your dex mode...overlap and not stack with the shields actual shield bonus to AC?

Would that be more balanced, do you think? Or does it just not make sense to you?

Edit
The more I think about it the more I think I should have them not stack. But to make it worht something, I'll have to bump the prerequisite Dexterity to at least 20 (anything less than that and you'd be losing or not gaining any AC for taking the feat). Hows it look now?

[Cybren]

Would that be more balanced, do you think? Or does it just not make sense to you?
I just meant hte wording was kind of confusing as to what it does.

[magic8BALL]

no... I just dont like shield mastery as is. you need dex 20+ to get any effect from it, and if you have that sort of dex, you're not worried about shields at lower levels. You need to be a fighter, barbarian or paladin to get it pre-epic, and these guys usually have 16 or so or less for a dex score.

How about:

Shield Mastery [General]
You have learnt that it's not the size of the shield that matters, it's how you uses it.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Greater Shield Specialization, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your shield is treated as having a base bonus to AC equal to you dex modifier. This stacks with the +4 bonus from Greater Shield Specialization. For instance, a barbarian with Dex 16 and a +2 light shield with this feat would have a +9 shield bonus to AC (+3 dex, +2 enhancement, +4 greater shield specialization).
Anytime you would be denied your dextrity to AC, your shield provides its normal bonus only.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Mastery as a bonus feat.

Any good? I'd probly drop the BAB to +12 myself... but I'd also probly use my other sugestions above too...

[Caewil]

Level 16 fighters, anyways. And that's right about how effective shields should be. I think they should stack, but if it proves to be unbalanced that way then I'll change that.
I wouldn't worry about it. Most of the higher level (melee) monsters have massive bonuses to hit anyway. And the most potent threats are magical in nature anyways.

[Indoril]

Shield Mastery [General]
You have learnt that it's not the size of the shield that matters, it's how you uses it.
Prerequisites: Dex 15, Greater Shield Specialization, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: Your shield is treated as having a base bonus to AC equal to you dex modifier. This stacks with the +4 bonus from Greater Shield Specialization. For instance, a barbarian with Dex 16 and a +2 light shield with this feat would have a +9 shield bonus to AC (+3 dex, +2 enhancement, +4 greater shield specialization).
Anytime you would be denied your dextrity to AC, your shield provides its normal bonus only.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Mastery as a bonus feat.

I changed it a bit more something like this, but not quite exactly the same. How is it now?

[Behold_the_Void]

The reason I ask about being usable with Animated Shields is because Animated Shields are one of the key reasons people don't make sword-and-board builds. For 9,000 gold you can pick yourself up an animated shield +1 and still two-hand a weapon.

[Matthew]

Shields certainly need some love, but this does seem kind of Feat heavy and Shields probably need to do more than just provide +X AC to make Weapon and Shield more attractive than Two Handed Fighting.

One quick and dirty solution is to a Feat or House Rule that gives Combat Expertise a 2:1 AC to BAB return for Shield users.

Here's a link to an Active Block (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2) discussion from many months ago.

[Indoril]

The reason I ask about being usable with Animated Shields is because Animated Shields are one of the key reasons people don't make sword-and-board builds. For 9,000 gold you can pick yourself up an animated shield +1 and still two-hand a weapon.


I think I'm going to add in that the feats have no effect on animated shields. It doesn't make sense that animated shields should work for these.

[cferejohn]

It would be cool to add some shield feats that allowed you to block ranged touch/ray/line/cone/breath attacks as well. I mean, how many posters/paintings are there where the knight is fighting the dragon and blocking the breath weapon with his shield? It would be a nice bit of flavor if this were possible. Apologies if it's been done in some book I don't have...

[Matthew]

Arrow Block is already a Feat. It allows you to negate one Ranged Attack per round with a Shield.

[Indoril]

Shields certainly need some love, but this does seem kind of Feat heavy and Shields probably need to do more than just provide +X AC to make Weapon and Shield more attractive than Two Handed Fighting.

One quick and dirty solution is to a Feat or House Rule that gives Combat Expertise a 2:1 AC to BAB return for Shield users.

Here's a link to an Active Block (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2) discussion from many months ago.

Actually there is more to my shield variant than these feats. I had also started working on a complete rework of shields as items that cause all shields to, instead of grant you extra AC, grant you a set amount of cover. I intended to use that with these feats to make shields what they should be, but I hadn't completed it. I think I may at some point.

[Matthew]

Hmmn. Cover is troublesom, since it gives the character a penalty to hit his opponent. How do you propose to get around that problem?

[cferejohn]

Hmmn. Cover is troublesom, since it gives the character a penalty to hit his opponent. How do you propose to get around that problem?

Umm, make the penalty only apply to the opponent, like shooting around a corner?

[Matthew]

Well, then it's not cover, it's an AC and Reflex Save Bonus.

[Indoril]

Hmmn. Cover is troublesom, since it gives the character a penalty to hit his opponent. How do you propose to get around that problem?

I just read over Cover as it is stated in the PHB, it says nothing of a penalty to attacks to characters who have cover.

Where do you see this at?

This is what it has listed for cover:

+2 bonus to Ref saves against attacks originating from a point on the other side of the cover as you (so, on the other side of your shield, or in front of you).
If you have cover, attacks of opportunity may not be made against you.
Cover can be used to make Hide checks
Varying AC bonus, base being +4


So what if instead we used the concealment rules, giving a character holding a shield a base % chance to block?

[Matthew]

Basically, if you have cover from them in Melee, they have cover from you.

Concealment would make sense, though I have to admit I don't like the Concealment Rules that much to begin with. Basically, you would be modelling your chance to block an Attack. The only thing I would say is that it ought to scale somehow with the Character's Shield Skill and if it does that, a percentage chance unrelated to the skill of the attacker and the defender may not be the best way to go.

[Yakk]

Other shield ideas:
The first (shield bonus) points of damage dealt to you in a battle is ignored. Or, fall back 5' to soak and (shield bonus) damage from an attack (with a note allowing the attacker to follow).

---

Your shield bonus applies to your touch AC.

---

Shield Bonus to reflex saves when you aren't flat footed.

---

Shield Bonus to fortitude saves when you aren't flat footed.

---

Shield bonus to wi... ok, I can't quite justify that.

---

Pick a target. If that target attacks you and misses, you gain an AoO with a bonus to hit equal to your shield bonus.

---

AoO sunder attack against anyone who misses you using your shield. The defensive bonus, not the offensive bonus, adds to the to hit and damage in this case.

---

You can apply your shield defences as an immediate action to an ally within 5'.

---

Gain 1.5 x str damage and 1.5x power attack damage when using a shield and a one handed weapon.

---

On any critical hit, get a free shield bash attack.

---

As an immediate action, attempt to block any attack which passes within 5' of you. Roll BaB+Str+Dex+Shield Bonus against the attack. On success, the attack is blocked.

[cferejohn]

Hmmn. Cover is troublesom, since it gives the character a penalty to hit his opponent. How do you propose to get around that problem?

Umm, make the penalty only apply to the opponent, like shooting around a corner?

[Matthew]

Yeah, you posted that above. As I said, it's not actually melee cover, then, it's a flat Armour Class and Reflex Save Bonus. I have no problem either way, I was just wondering what Indoril was doing about it. As it turned out, he does not appear to have been aware that cover is relative to both parties in melee.

[Indoril]

Yeah, you posted that above. As I said, it's not actually melee cover, then, it's a flat Armour Class and Reflex Save Bonus. I have no problem either way, I was just wondering what Indoril was doing about it. As it turned out, he does not appear to have been aware that cover is relative to both parties in melee.

The thing is I just read through all the cover rules, and it doesn't say that. Where are you getting it from?

[Matthew]

Well, I don't have a copy of the 3.5 PHB to hand and the SRD is vague, so maybe it didn't make the transition, but here's the thing:

X I Y

X and Y are combatants, I is cover.

Both X and Y have cover relative to one another, therefore they both gain the effects of cover in Melee.

Admittedly, I put in unclearly before, as it is not an AB Penalty to the Attacker, but an AC Bonus for the Defender, I'm just used to thinking of it as a penalty.

[Indoril]

This would be true if it were say two people attacking each other around a corner, or over a fence or wall, but a shield works differently.

Also I like the concealment rules better than the cover rules, I'll modify the work I've done and finish it. Stay tuned for more.

[Matthew]

Well, a Shield doesn't appear to work differently, when it acts as cover. The case of the Tower Shield shows that to be true, since when a character uses it to gain Total Cover, his opponents also have Total Cover.

Light Shields and Heavy Shields do not act as cover, since the Heavy Shield grants no Reflex Save Bonus, which it would if it were cover. You could make it so it was different, but as things stand if a character wishes to claim cover bonuses from a Shield, all the normal cover rules would apply.

[Indoril]

The rules in the PHB state that you can only use Tower Shields for cover, and they grant Total Cover in return for sacrificing all of your attacks for that round.

Total Cover is said to be given "If you don't have line of effect to your target, for instance if he is completely behind a high wall..."

So when deriving Total Cover from a Tower Shield, you indeed cannot attack because you're using the round to hide behind the shield. One can assume that, being 100% behind something, you may also no longer attack your opponent in the event you have total cover from something other than a tower shield.
However, as per the 3.5 PHB, if you're granted partial cover by say standing in a bush, and your target is adjacent to said bush, he gains none of the benefits of cover.

This kind of makes sense. Look at how arrow slits work in castle walls. The archer sitting up behind the arrow slit would be able to fire through the slit at targets below effortlessly, and those targets wouldn't be granted the benefit of being behind a wall. However, the archers on the ground shooting up at the arrow slit would have a very hard time hitting the archer behind the arrow slit, as the archer behind the arrow slit would have a huge bonus from cover because he's being shot at through a 2 inch wide, 12 inch long gap from people 100+ feet away.

[Matthew]

What, where on earth does it say that? Bushes grant concealment, according to the SRD. It is Ranged Attacks that don't have to worry about relative cover, as the target is not adjacent. Its that simple. In all melee cases, adjacent foes have cover if there is cover between them.

[Indoril]

I completely reworked the old variant I made for using Shields as Cover, and I used the rules for Concealment instead. I also added a bit of this into the feats originally posted in the thread. I have included each under its own spoiler link to keep it neat.

Shields as Concealment
This variant uses shields as a form of concealment, with several exceptions. First of all, shields cannot be used to make a Hide check. This concealment has no effect if you are denied you Dex bonus to AC (such as when you are flat-footed). Using this variant, shields provide no AC bonus. Instead, they impose a miss chance on all melee attacks, ranged attacks, and touch attacks, provided the attacks are coming from in front of you. This chance represents your chance to block attacks made against you. The imposed miss chances are applied based on the following table:

{table=head]Shield Type|
Chance to Block

Buckler|
10% + (1% x Wielder's BAB) - (1% x Attacker's BAB)

Light|
20% + (1% x Wielder's BAB) - (1% x Attacker's BAB)

Heavy|
30% + (1% x Wielder's BAB) - (1% x Attacker's BAB)

Tower|
40% + (1% x Wielder's BAB) - (1% x Attacker's BAB)*[/table]
*Tower Shields may still grant Total Cover instead of a chance to block. See page 125 of the Player's Handbook.

When a shield blocks an attack, you take no damage. The shield takes half of the damage that would have been dealt by the attack, reduced accordingly by its hardness (see "Smashing an Object" on page 165 of the Player's Handbook for rules on Item Hardness and Item Hit Points). Shields cannot block critical hits, nor can they block attacks that ignore armor (such as brilliant energy weapons).

Shield Feats, Adjusted for Concealment Variant
Shield Focus
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency
Benefit: The armor check penalty you receive from shields is reduced by 1 for any shield you are proficient with.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Focus as a bonus feat.

Shield Focus, Greater
Prerequisites: Shield Focus, Shield Proficiency, base attack bonus +8
Benefit: The armor check penalty you receive from shields is reduced by 2 for any shield you are proficient with. This bonus overlaps (does not stack with) the bonus granted by Shield Focus.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Shield Focus as a bonus feat.

Shield Mastery
Prerequisites: Dex 16, Shield Proficiency, Shield Focus, Shield Specialization, Greater Shield Focus, Greater Shield Specialization, base attack bonus +16
Benefit: You receive a shield bonus to AC equal to your Dexterity modifier when using any shield that you are proficient with. This bonus overlaps (does not stack with) the AC bonus added by the shield you are using (though any magical enhancement bonuses still apply), and it is lost if you would ever be denied your Dexterity bonus to your Armor Class. The bonus granted by this feat does stack with that granted by Greater Shield Specialization.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Mastery as a bonus feat.

Shield Specialization
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, base attack bonus +4
Benefit: You receive a +1 shield bonus to AC when using any shield you are proficient with, and your chance to block is increased by 5% with any shield you are proficient with.
Special: A fighter may select Shield Specialization as a bonus feat.

Shield Specialization, Greater
Prerequisites: Shield Proficiency, Shield Specialization, base attack bonus +12
Benefit: You receive a +2 shield bonus to AC when using any shield you are proficient with, and your chance to block is increased by 10% with any shield you are proficient with. This bonus overlaps (does not stack with) the bonus granted by the Shield Specialization feat.
Special: A fighter may select Greater Shield Specialization as a bonus feat.

[Indoril]

What, where on earth does it say that? Bushes grant concealment, according to the SRD. It is Ranged Attacks that don't have to worry about relative cover, as the target is not adjacent. Its that simple. In all melee cases, adjacent foes have cover if there is cover between them.

Yes that is true, if two opponents are fighting over a hedge or from around a corner they would both have cover.

But if we were to say that Shields grant cover instead of AC, then only the character wielding the shield would get the cover, not his target as well. If I had a sword and a shield and you just had a sword, you'd have a hard time hitting me, not the other way around.

This is beside the point anyways, I re-did the variant using concealment rules because not only do they make more sense, they're much less complicated than having shields grant cover (as has been demonstrated, I believe).

[Matthew]

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with changing the rules to make Shields better or changing the Cover rules. I just didn't see the point in having Shields grant cover and then making an exception to how that works in this case; indeed, I would suggest that this is the reason that Shields do not grant cover in D&D. They almost do (i.e. if a character is not proficient with Light and Heavy Shields he suffers an AB penalty equal to his AC Bonus from the Shield), but they don't and so that is why I didn't consider it logical to use the cover rules.

Theoretically, if I had a Sword and you a Sword and Shield, I would have a harder time hitting you, but you might also have a harder time hitting me than if you just had a Sword. The point, though, is that D&D doesn't use the cover rules to model Weapon and Shield combat (and rightly so). Regardless, D&D does not do a very good job of modelling real life, though, since a character can use a shield to defend himself equally well against two flanking opponents as against eight.

The only problem with using Concealment to model this is that it does not take into account the skill of defender and attacker (unless you have a mechanism for that). It is a reasonable solution, though.

[Indoril]

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with changing the rules to make Shields better or changing the Cover rules. I just didn't see the point in having Shields grant cover and then making an exception to how that works in this case; indeed, I would suggest that this is the reason that Shields do not grant cover in D&D (they almost do, if a character is not proficient with Light and Heavy Shields he suffers an AB penalty equal to his AC Bonus from the Shield).

Theoretically, if I had a Sword and you a Sword and Shield, I would have a harder time hitting you, but you would also likely have a harder time hitting me than if you just had a Sword. D&D does not do a very good job of modelling real life, though, since a character can use a shield to defend himself equally well against two flanking opponents as against eight.

The only problem with using Concealment to model this is that it does not take into account the skill of defender and attacker (unless you have a mechanism for that). It is a reasonable solution, though.

Well skill of the defender would be determined by the feats he could take to make his shield use more effective (focus, specialization, the greater versions of the two, and mastery), and also by something already in place, his Dex bonus to AC.

How would you have the skill of the attacker represented other than by his attack roll? Sundering a shield and critical hits come to mind. I think I'll add in that you cannot block critical hits with a shield, just because of the nature of what a critical hit is.

[Matthew]

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Concealment does not take into account the skill of the Attacker, it just assigns a percentage chance of his attack failing. As D&D stands, the defender has a Defence Bonus and the Attacker has an Attack Bonus. If you use Concealment rules on top of this, then the Attacker has a flat chance of missing, regardless of his skill (which is why I don't like the concealment rules much to begin with).

[Indoril]

As D&D stands, the defender has a Defence Bonus and the Attacker has an Attack Bonus. If you use Concealment rules on top of this, then the Attacker has a flat chance of missing, regardless of his skill (which is why I don't like the concealment rules much to begin with).

Hmm that's true, I'll have to think about how to incorporate that in.

Edit
I think I could justify it the way it is. Say you have a Light Steel Shield, and you're proficient with it (you've taken no other feats). Well you have a 20% chance to block attacks coming from in front of you by simply holding it there, not using any skill (because you have no skill with the shield, you just know how to hold it there without debilitating your ability to swing a sword). Defender skill would come in the form of those feats. When you start taking feats to make your use of a shield more effeicient and protective, you become skilled in the use of a shield.

Attacker skill could be represented by say a feat that gives you the ability to make it past a target's shield more easily. Or perhaps a Sleight of Hand check (DC 10 + 1/2 Shield's Chance to Block) to get past a shield's defenses anyways.

[Matthew]

Sure. It's not the solution I would choose, but it's viable (Opposed Rolls are my favoured solution).

[Indoril]

What would you suggest? The only problem I see with the Sleight of Hand Checks is that several folks likely to make melee attacks (Fighters...Paladins...Barbarians...) don't get Sleight of Hand as a class skill. Creation of a feat would be nice as well, but someone would have to make it and then have it critiqued and then balance it.

So you're right that while both are viable they may not be the easiest. How would you do it?

[Matthew]

Well, a number of suggestions have been made over the years to make Weapon and Shield a viable option in D&D.

If you were going to use the Concealment Rules, I might be inclined to make it [(5% x Shield Bonus) + (1 % x AB of Defender) - (1% x AB of Attacker)].

You could even make the multiples as high as 5% if you wanted very skilled individuals to have a very high chance. You could also use Character Level in place of AB.

Concealment isn't my preferred choice, though. Taking my lead from the Mounted Combat Feat, I would allow Characters with a Shield to once a round make an Opposed AB Check to negate a single Attack.

Probably something like:

[BAB + Shield Bonus + Dexterity Bonus (or Strength Bonus) + any other Shield AB modifiers]

I might allow it to automatically scale by level (i.e. once at Level 1, twice at Level 6, three times at Level 11 and four times at Level 16) or make separate Feats for each.

[Rebonack]

Add this to Combat Expertise

Special: When wielding a buckler, light or heavy shield the welder's dodge AC gained increased to 1.5 for each point of BAB sacrificed. When wielding a tower shield the dodge bonus gained increases to 2 for each point of BAB sacrificed.

Look at that. Now the poor tower shield is actually useful. Throw in a feat that grants concealment based on how much BAB you sacrifice and you're set. Defense out the wazoo without resorting to making DEX even better than it already is.

[Indoril]

If you were going to use the Concealment Rules, I might be inclined to make it [(5% x Shield Bonus) + (1 % x AB of Defender) - (1% x AB of Attacker)].

Of the two you presented there, I lean more towards this one. I like the idea of s shield being there as constant protection - regardless of how skilled you are at it's use it's still going to be there getting in the way of attacks, but it still incorporates the fact that A)You're essentially making an attack roll with your shield againt their attack to try and block it and B)Their attack is going to have to find it's way past your shield.

Edit - I went ahead and incorporated this aspect into the variant with a slight change. What do you think about it?


Special: When wielding a buckler, light or heavy shield the welder's dodge AC gained increased to 1.5 for each point of BAB sacrificed. When wielding a tower shield the dodge bonus gained increases to 2 for each point of BAB sacrificed.

Hmm it would be turning Combat Expertise into something it wasn't meant to be I think. Combat Expertise was made to be a feat that actually allowed you to use you pure martial skill to gain a bonus to AC, not your skill with a shield. Though making a "Power Block" feat that sacrifices AB from a full attack to add to your AC/Chance to Block until your next action might be nice.

So I like your idea, I just think it needs its own feat.

[Rebonack]

Combat Expertise already needs a feat to pump it past a -5 penilty to BAB. Power Attack gets full BAB scaling and bonus damage on two handed weapons on its own.

We know Sword and Board is sub-optimal. There's no reason to make it more feat intensive than it has to be.

[Matthew]

Of the two you presented there, I lean more towards this one. I like the idea of s shield being there as constant protection - regardless of how skilled you are at it's use it's still going to be there getting in the way of attacks, but it still incorporates the fact that A)You're essentially making an attack roll with your shield againt their attack to try and block it and B)Their attack is going to have to find it's way past your shield.

Edit - I went ahead and incorporated this aspect into the variant with a slight change. What do you think about it?

Seems okay to me. You might want to incorporate a 'Magic Bonus' element to account for +1 to +5 Shields, but maybe not. You might also want to consider the effects of Improved Precise Shot, as that Feat bypasses Cover and Concealment. There might be a number of Feats that grant similar effects, but I am not familiar with the full spectrum of such things. The only other thing to note is that Bucklers are often used in conjunction with Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting, which may take away something of the empowerment you are trying to create for Shields.


Add this to Combat Expertise

Special: When wielding a buckler, light or heavy shield the welder's dodge AC gained increased to 1.5 for each point of BAB sacrificed. When wielding a tower shield the dodge bonus gained increases to 2 for each point of BAB sacrificed.

Look at that. Now the poor tower shield is actually useful. Throw in a feat that grants concealment based on how much BAB you sacrifice and you're set. Defense out the wazoo without resorting to making DEX even better than it already is.

Do we really need to power up Tower Shields? I don't think they should ever be more useful in melee combat than Light and Heavy Shields; they are 45 lb Pavises, after all! Also, Bucklers should probably be prohibited from granting any bonuses because of the way they interact with Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting.

A 1.5:1 or 2:1 exchange rate for Light and Heavy Shields seems like more than enough, either as a House Rule or a Feat.

[Indoril]

Seems okay to me. You might want to incorporate a 'Magic Bonus' element to account for +1 to +5 Shields, but maybe not. You might also want to consider the effects of Improved Precise Shot, as that Feat bypasses Cover and Concealment. There might be a number of Feats that grant similar effects, but I am not familiar with the full spectrum of such things. The only other thing to note is that Bucklers are often used in conjunction with Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting, which may take away something of the empowerment you are trying to create for Shields.

Well hows this...

Enhancement bonuses to shields still add to AC as normal, as that isn't a bonus from having a shield, that's a bonus from the maginc on the shield.

If a character wielding a shield is subjected to an attack using the Improved Precise Shot feat, then he is still entitled to a Reflex save (DC = Attacker's Attack Roll) to block the attack, and any enhancement bonuses on the shield are added in to his roll.

I think I'll leave bucklers the way they are for THF and TWF. Bucklers aren't that great, it's just a nice bonus to have if you want a shield but still want a free hand to wield a weapon.

[Rebonack]

Do we really need to power up Tower Shields? I don't think they should ever be more useful in melee combat than Light and Heavy Shields; they are 45 lb Pavises, after all! Also, Bucklers should probably be prohibited from granting any bonuses because of the way they interact with Two Handed Fighting and Two Weapon Fighting.

A 1.5:1 or 2:1 exchange rate for Light and Heavy Shields seems like more than enough, either as a House Rule or a Feat.

In a word, yes. Yes I do.

I honestly don't think I've ever seen someone make a character that uses tower shields, mainly due to the -2 to hit penalty they impose even if you're proficient with them.

And the 45 pounds of weight is even more unrealistic than an eight pound great sword. Being huge didn't stop the Roman legions from being crazy deadly with the things. I'm all in favor of dropping the to hit penalty all together.

Incidentally, the Roman tower shields also had a large metal portion that stuck out in the middle for the purpose of smacking people in the gut. So much for no bashing.

As it stands Fighters are the only class that gets to use them without feat investment. So you have to ask yourself how unbalancing anything that will improve the usefulness of Fighter sword and boarders would be.

[arkwei]

And Im not sure about a shield granting a defection bonus either.

There is a "parrying shield" feat in lords of madness that does exactly that. Actually not really, it adds your shield bonus to your touch ac, so it is actually better than granting a deflection bonus.


In a word, yes. Yes I do.

I honestly don't think I've ever seen someone make a character that uses tower shields, mainly due to the -2 to hit penalty they impose even if you're proficient with them.

And the 45 pounds of weight is even more unrealistic than an eight pound great sword. Being huge didn't stop the Roman legions from being crazy deadly with the things. I'm all in favor of dropping the to hit penalty all together.

Incidentally, the Roman tower shields also had a large metal portion that stuck out in the middle for the purpose of smacking people in the gut. So much for no bashing.

As it stands Fighters are the only class that gets to use them without feat investment. So you have to ask yourself how unbalancing anything that will improve the usefulness of Fighter sword and boarders would be.

Well, speaking of Roman shields, they are being used by a first level characters, and being attacked by similar level opponents. With a Tower and a Chainmail, they are having a 19 AC. How hard is it for a first level warrior to hit 19 AC? Very. I mean, mundane armor means a lot at low level.

[magic8BALL]

I'm picking up there is a problem with shields.

I'm throwing out the "shields grant cover" thing, and replacing it with a boost that may make the old shield more applealing and realistic.

Shields
{table=head]Shield|Bonus[br]to AC|Max Dex|Penalty to[br]attack|Armor[br]check penalty|Arcan Spell Failure|Weight*
Buckler|
+1|
+7|
0|
-1|
5%|
5lb

Light|
+2|
+5|
0|
-2|
10%|
7lb

Heavy|
+4|
+4|
-1|
-4|
20%|
10lb

Extreme|
+6|
+3|
-1|
-6|
35%|
20lb

Tower|
+8|
+2|
-2|
-10|
55%|
40lb[/table]
*weights are listed are for medium wooden versions of the shields. double for each size catagory larger, half for each smaller, and then add 50% of the weight if it is made of steel.

[arkwei]

I'm picking up there is a problem with shields.

I'm throwing out the "shields grant cover" thing, and replacing it with a boost that may make the old shield more applealing and realistic.

*weights are listed are for medium wooden versions of the shields. double for each size catagory larger, half for each smaller, and then add 50% of the weight if it is made of steel.



You are suggesting that a first level fighter with chainmail and tower shield is not going to be hit by any first level attacker without magic. For 180 gp, a first level fighter is having a 23 AC, which is really not going to be hit besides a critical. And that didn't include AC from Dex. This is really unbalancing, isn't it?

[Rebonack]

Well, speaking of Roman shields, they are being used by a first level characters, and being attacked by similar level opponents. With a Tower and a Chainmail, they are having a 19 AC. How hard is it for a first level warrior to hit 19 AC? Very. I mean, mundane armor means a lot at low level.

Or a first level Fighter? Assuming reasonable Str and assuming that they charge (which they should) a 35% of hitting successfully.

Plenty enough time for the Fighter to keep the opponent busy until the party wizard can Sleep the poor NPC and have someone Coup De Grace him.

Fights like these don't happen in a vacuum. If the party Fighter wants to sacrifice raw power in return for better AC then I'm not going to stop him.

[arkwei]

Or a first level Fighter? Assuming reasonable Str and assuming that they charge (which they should) a 35% of hitting successfully.

Plenty enough time for the Fighter to keep the opponent busy until the party wizard can Sleep the poor NPC and have someone Coup De Grace him.

Fights like these don't happen in a vacuum. If the party Fighter wants to sacrifice raw power in return for better AC then I'm not going to stop him.


...exactly. In a magical setting, tower shield is not that big of a deal, but when there's no magic, tower shield looks that it is a big thing. I am arguing that Roman shield just LOOK effective, it is not going to be so effective in D&D, which is why I suggest that we don't increase its power further.

By the way, I said warrior because we were talking about wars, and in Heros of Battle they suggested that most foot soldiers are 1st level warriors; the ELITE squard is made up by 1st level fighters.

[magic8BALL]

For 180 gp, a first level fighter is having a 23 AC, which is really not going to be hit besides a critical.

Change the costs then.

Buckler: 5gp
Light: 10gp
Heavy: 20gp
Extreme: 40gp
Tower: 80gp

A rich 1st level fighter could get a tower shield and chainmail, maybe even a weapon. But at the cost of having the rouge, cleric, wizard, etc, hit more often in melee. Also, try balancing on the cliff edge your fighting on, or charging across the uneven floor of the temple, or jumping across the chasm, or climbing out of the pit, or staying about the surface of a raging torrent with a -15 to all strength and dexterity based checks. A huge AC dosn't always mean your safe.

[Rebonack]

...exactly. In a magical setting, tower shield is not that big of a deal, but when there's no magic, tower shield looks that it is a big thing. I am arguing that Roman shield just LOOK effective, it is not going to be so effective in D&D, which is why I suggest that we don't increase its power further.

By the way, I said warrior because we were talking about wars, and in Heros of Battle they suggested that most foot soldiers are 1st level warriors; the ELITE squard is made up by 1st level fighters.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you're suggesting that because the Fighter's class features suck we shouldn't bother making them slightly less awful.

That... doesn't seem very sound.

Further, a concealment miss chance on shields via a feat tree would do a reasonable job of helping a Fighter type out. Ray of Enfeeblement anyone? More options are always a good thing.

As for armies, well, I don't think we should be balancing feats based on clashing forces of level one warriors. And I'm going to disagree with Hero's of Battle. The Fighter as written is little better than a trained soldier. A Warrior would be more of a local militia sort of person. The difference is nothing more than starting wealth and one feat.

[arkwei]

Change the costs then.

Buckler: 5gp
Light: 10gp
Heavy: 20gp
Extreme: 40gp
Tower: 80gp

A rich 1st level fighter could get a tower shield and chainmail, maybe even a weapon. But at the cost of having the rouge, cleric, wizard, etc, hit more often in melee. Also, try balancing on the cliff edge your fighting on, or charging across the uneven floor of the temple, or jumping across the chasm, or climbing out of the pit, or staying about the surface of a raging torrent with a -15 to all strength and dexterity based checks. A huge AC dosn't always mean your safe.

...Then they'd better be dropping the shield, or they would die easy. But, dropping a shield is a free action(or move, don't remember). In an instant the disadvantage is gone. Note, when you are wearing a Full Plate, which has the same AC bonus but a lower penalty, you CAN'T get out of your penalty as easy as such.


You do notice that a Full Plate add 8 to AC too, and it is 1500 gp. I will be picking the 80 gp anytime. And honestly, I don't think in real life a tower shield is almost the same as a full plate.

[arkwei]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like you're suggesting that because the Fighter's class features suck we shouldn't bother making them slightly less awful.

Well, okay, from this perspective I can agree with you.



As for armies, well, I don't think we should be balancing feats based on clashing forces of level one warriors. And I'm going to disagree with Hero's of Battle. The Fighter as written is little better than a trained soldier. A Warrior would be more of a local militia sort of person. The difference is nothing more than starting wealth and one feat.

Just saying, in the old days there aren't that many profesional soldiers, unlike nowadays. figthers have one extra feat, 2 extra HP (that is one-third more), more gold. How much more do you want?

[Rebonack]

I would say that simply dropping the Tower Shield's -2 to hit penalty might not be a good idea, but make getting rid of it easy. Say, picking up Shield Focus: Tower Shield removes it or something.

That seems like a reasonable way to go.

And looking over actual figures I can safely say that the weight for the shields, especially the larger ones, is off. By a whole bunch of a lot. Tower shields were between about 12 and 20 pounds. A 'heavy steel shield' would have been between 8 and 9.

[Matthew]

Rebonack.



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.


A D&D Tower Shield is not a Scutum, it is a Pavise. Scuta are not the height of the user. They do not weigh 45 lbs (10-20 lbs usually). Scuta were used offensively and did not hinder attack. The Tower Shield models none of these things and so is not a good mechanic for a Scutum. A Heavy Shield models all of these things and is the obvious candidate for the Scutum. In short, it's pointless to try and make the Tower Shield fit the Scutum when nothing about it mechanically fits.

Honestly, if you want to make a Suta better than a Heavy Shield, don't use the Tower Shield as a model.

Also, 8 lbs is the upper limit of weights for usable Two Handed Swords, just as 4 lbs is the upper limit for Single Handed Swords and 2 lbs the upper limit for Single Handed Short Swords. D&D weights are often off, but not in this case; they just aren't presenting the average.

The Weightly Issue of Two Handed Great Swords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html)