Higher shield bonus?

[John Longarrow]

I've been doing some thinking, especially about how effective shields are in real life compared to armor. How much of a boost to melee characters would it be if shields had twice their bonus? Small shields would give +2, large +4, and tower +8. At low levels Tower shields would become more common since, while they are massively heavy, they do offer massive protection. They are comparable to the pavise or hoplon, both of which provide a majority of the protection the bearer has.

At higher levels the +1 or +2 wouldn't be much as most high level melee types would be loathed to have tower shield. At lower levels it could very well make melee centric builds much more survivable.

Thoughts?

[AvatarVecna]

Not much would change. There's no effect on people who don't use shields because they're arcane casters, because they still don't want to use shields. There's no effect on people who only use a shield for bashing purposes, because most all of them don't benefit from the shield bonus anyway, and aren't using a shield for the defensive benefits. The only group where there's even a slight change is the people who tank, and if they were any good at tanking before the change, they won't notice it (because they already had their AC pumped up high enough for everybody to need a nat 20 to hit them).

It would probably become more common among the civilians, but that's because they're only hope of "winning the battle" is "living through the battle while the heroes do the real work"; they would have at least a small shield to whip out for that extra 10% of not getting hit. That's just the commoners and experts and aristocrats, though; the warriors will be using weapons to try and kill people, with a buckler strapped on at the most, while the adepts are busy casting, or healing, or whatever.

[Fizban]

On the contrary, increasing the effectiveness of something always creates a change. Casters will be far more willing to jump through (relatively minor) hoops to get a bonus higher than their Shield spell. Bashers keep their shield bonus since they have Improved Shield Bash anyway, and this makes them harder to hit. The difference between a buckler and an Actual Shield becomes relevant.

I don't even think you need to double the bonus: on my customized armor table, I simply increase the Light Shield from +1 to +2 and the Heavy Shield from +2 to +3 (and reduced the attack penalty on the Tower Shield from -2 to -1 rather than increasing it's AC to +5 cause that seemed a little high). That one point of difference doesn't matter at all right? But now there's a reason to use a Light shield instead of a Buckler if you want a little insurance with a build that's not all two-handed all the time. And if you're using a Light shield you might as well go to Heavy, which is actually +2 higher than you were going to get. If the enemy was hitting you on an 11 without a shield, they've gone from 50% accuracy to 35% accuracy. And hey, you've got plenty of attack bonus, why not just take the -1 and grab a Tower Shield, you can hide behind those things and be literally invincible you know? And that's not counting the enhancement bonus, which is dirt cheap. Why, adding a shield could easily get you +6 AC and cut even strong melee opponents down to half their original accuracy for less than the cost of a miss chance item! And it stacks!

Fixing the stupid shield bonus progression gets people to actually look at them. Just getting someone to consider using a shield instead of riding the two-handed hype train can lead down a slippery slope to *gasp*, actually using shields. If +1 isn't enough then go ahead and double it overall, but I'd suggest a gradient that makes each shield distinct. The role of "having an armor class" is as alive as you choose for it to be.

And there is indeed also the mook effect. Restatting the hobbo regulars in Red Hand of Doom, they got +2 AC from my heavy shield and medium armor buffs and another +2 from the Shield Wall feat, pushing their AC high enough that the players had to roll a decent number to hit. The look on their faces when the warm up ambush just ignored their melee guy's first turn was priceless. Against untrained commoner militia they would be functionally invincible, as a trained soldier should be.

[Twurps]

I have to agree with fizban. Just going by the number of topics on this forum, tanking is a very popular role in D&D. But it's nearly impossible to do right without strong cheese. Making a shield actually matter for your AC would help a lot with this problem, at least up until the level (both optimization level and character level) where melee becomes pretty much obsolete entirely.

[ComaVision]

Sign me up for 4 hour battles with a group of 4 goblins, everyone using shields. Sounds great.

[Twurps]

Sign me up for 4 hour battles with a group of 4 goblins, everyone using shields. Sounds great.

Sign me up for a game where I can actually invest in my low level character without a 50/50 chance of not making it through the first session.

[ComaVision]

Sign me up for a game where I can actually invest in my low level character without a 50/50 chance of not making it through the first session.

Do you realize your odds actually don't improve if the enemies use shields as well? Not to mention the ACP makes you more susceptible to environmental hazards.

EDIT: I much prefer the idea of making the Shield Specialization bonus scale based on BaB so there's a small, relevant bonus through-out the game rather than a really big bonus at low levels.

[Agincourt]

Do you realize your odds actually don't improve if the enemies use shields as well? Not to mention the ACP makes you more susceptible to environmental hazards.



That's not necessarily true. It is fairly common for low level characters to die because of 1 critical hit. Many characters could survive a regular hit, which might just put them at -1 and dying, but not be able to withstand a critical hit.

Making it less likely that critical hits are confirmed could make it more likely that the PCs survive and reduce the randomness of low level combats.

[ComaVision]

That's not necessarily true. It is fairly common for low level characters to die because of 1 critical hit. Many characters could survive a regular hit, which might just put them at -1 and dying, but not be able to withstand a critical hit.

Making it less likely that critical hits are confirmed could make it more likely that the PCs survive and reduce the randomness of low level combats.

Fair point but I don't think that's going to make the survival chance 50/50. I'd still rather not spent the whole game fishing for 20s because everyone has jacked AC.

[Blackhawk748]

+2, +4, and +6 is sufficient. Also since ive dropped the Attack penalty for the Hide and Tower Shields, sword an board has become a bit more popular at my table.

[yellowrocket]

I like the idea of a scaling shield bonus. That would keep sword and board a more viable option and reflect the growing proficiency that one aquires through continued use of an item as opposed to providing diminishing returns as it does now.

I would apply this to my game if the sword and board character wasn't by far the most dangerous because the others haven't reached a caster level to create the instant impact of a plus 9 to hit and plus 11 damage every attack.

[Elkad]

I've fiddled with a fractional BAB application for shields.
Adding 1/4th BAB to your defense with a buckler, 1/3 small, 1/2 large or tower. (plus the regular base+magic adjustment)
12th level fighter with a +1 Large Shield would have 2 base, 6 for BAB:12, 1 magic, for 9.

Animated shields specifically do not get this bonus (I considered letting them use the BAB of the creator, then eliminated it as still giving 2-handed weapon users too much of a boost).

Fun little arms race with sundering enemy shields, carrying extra shields, carrying sunder-resistant shields (exotic materials, hardness spells), casting Make Whole on them after battles, etc.

[Chronos]

The suggestion I've heard is to have a shield let you add your Dex bonus to AC again, up to the maximum allowed by your armor and shield. IIRC, a buckler has no bonus of its own but lets you add full Dex, a small shield gives +1 on its own and up to +4 Dex, a large shield gives +2 and up to +2 Dex, and a tower shield gives +4 but allows no Dex bonus. On paper, at least, it seems very well-balanced, but I've never actually tried it in a game.

[John Longarrow]

Sign me up for 4 hour battles with a group of 4 goblins, everyone using shields. Sounds great.

Then don't play a monk.. :smallsmile:

For most fights, I've seen the problem being PCs having a hard time dealing with the Ogre at lower levels then them not being able to hit a goblin. Even if you up the AC on a goblin by 2, it should not give much of a difference in fight time.

All, I think I'm going to try the +2/+4/+6 routine. Also remove the penalty to hit with tower shield. As it already requires you to either run a fighter or take a feat, I think that should balance it a bit. I have grown tired of only seeing TWF or THF at the table. This is almost entirely because the added damage, even at low levels, outshines a minor benefit on AC. It also means your armor is much more important than having a shield, something history has time and again shows is incorrect.

[Techwarrior]

Making shields a viable defensive alternative to two handed or two weapon. We did something entirely different though. Instead of upping the AC bonus, we made it so that a shield basically let you use the Wall of Blades maneuver once per round against any attack within your threatened area.

We found this did two things. First, it completely removed critical hits against the PC's. Any time a critical was rolled, it WAS blocked by a PC. Second, it completely replaced the need for Cure Light Wounds wands and spells. Sure, combat might take a round or two longer, but with around five free blocks a round it wasn't as lethal.

It also actually promoted roleplay. If you're blocking an attack for someone else, you made sure to mention it later. In an embarrassing moment. :smalltongue:

[heavyfuel]

What I do for shields is that anyone proficient with them gets the Shield Ward feat for free and a Bonus*5% miss chance.

Seems to work really well, though my sample size is very small.


Sign me up for 4 hour battles with a group of 4 goblins, everyone using shields. Sounds great.

Goblins have +2 attack bonus, +0 if they're wielding a tower shield. Any lv 1 fighter-like character can disarm/sunder them with ease as long as you don't mind an AoO (which you probably don't due to your now high AC)

If anything, this buff makes these subpar tactics a bit more worthwhile, balancing the game even more.

[ComaVision]

Goblins have +2 attack bonus, +0 if they're wielding a tower shield. Any lv 1 fighter-like character can disarm/sunder them with ease as long as you don't mind an AoO (which you probably don't due to your now high AC)

If anything, this buff makes these subpar tactics a bit more worthwhile, balancing the game even more.

It sounds like locking gauntlets would become very common, and I don't think many low level characters are going to be sundering with any efficiency using a one-handed weapon. That may be more balanced but it doesn't sound more fun.

I concede my argument though. It seems the consensus is that it wouldn't cause a problem. I just don't think it would benefit my games.

[Deadline]

EDIT: I much prefer the idea of making the Shield Specialization bonus scale based on BaB so there's a small, relevant bonus through-out the game rather than a really big bonus at low levels.

Maybe make a Shield Specialization feat that increases your Shield bonus to AC by 1/2 your BAB (minimum 1) when using a shield? It could have a few prerequisite feats to prevent major abuse by spellcasters, but still be viable for melee types. It could make the sword and board style much more appealing.

[John Longarrow]

To all, thank you very much for your comments.

From the look of it, since my goal is to make fighters much more viable at low levels this concept will work well. At mid/high levels the enchantment on the shield is still more useful than the shield itself (mostly). At low levels is makes sword and board worth something. As most characters seem to gravitate to chain shirt to keep speed up, it means the fighter with a chain shirt/large shield/14 dex is going to run an AC of 20 instead of 18. At 1st/2nd this should reduce the number of hits that land on said fighter by about 50%. It looks like enough of an advantage to make sword and board a good style instead of automatically going DEX&TWF or STR&THF.

[ComaVision]

Maybe make a Shield Specialization feat that increases your Shield bonus to AC by 1/2 your BAB (minimum 1) when using a shield? It could have a few prerequisite feats to prevent major abuse by spellcasters, but still be viable for melee types. It could make the sword and board style much more appealing.

That's my thought but I don't think you need to make it difficult to get. It'll have less value for spellcasters just by virtue of scaling off BaB. Spellcasters have better ways of getting ridiculous AC.

Then, allow the Iron Tortoise school of maneuvers from Path of War in to the game and you'll have competent sword'n'boarders.