[3.5] Shield Fixes?

[Kuma Kode]

Shields in Dungeons and Dragons suck. We all know it. The tried-and-true technique of the sword and shield is ubiquitous in fantasy, and yet it is one of the worst tactics to build for in-game.

What I want to know is if anyone has released a fix for the shields themselves, the mechanics surrounding them, or a set of feats to make them viable.

Not allowed to use Dragon or Dungeon magazines, but all WoTC products are okay, third-party sources can be good, and homebrew is also good (especially if it's from this forum; there's some high quality stuff here).

I'm asking this before I end up having to homebrew something myself.

[Swordguy]

1) Get rid of animated shields. Full stop.

2) Homebrew something. Incorporate either a flat "miss chance" from the shield, having shields grant cover automatically, or an active parry mechanic that takes an immediate action (so as not to screw the fighter's already-bad action economy). The existing stuff on shields is horrific for making them into defensive implements - they end up being used as an off-hand weapon more than they do a defensive device. Remember, you're having to compete against Leap Attack/Pounce/Power Attack combos from Greatsword wielders, so almost nothing you're going to do is going to be "too powerful" (and to say nothing about competing with casters).

3) Don't make it dependent on feats, but have the feats make it "better". The shield is pretty much THE ubiquitous weapon of medieval warfare - for all intents and purposes, everybody used one. Therefore, the shield should remain useful (and a damn sight more than +1 or +2 to AC useful) to everybody, regardless of their feat chains.

[Waker]

2) Homebrew something. Incorporate either a flat "miss chance" from the shield, having shields grant cover automatically, or an active parry mechanic that takes an immediate action (so as not to screw the fighter's already-bad action economy).

I rather like this idea. Putting in a miss chance is definitely workable. Get rid of the Parrying Shield feat and make it so all shields grant their ac to touch. You could also let ac give a small bonus to certain reflex saves, most notably explosions and similar area effects.
Increasing the amount of ac that shields have wouldn't be horrible either.

[MeeposFire]

Miss chance is so easy to get though. I do not know it would make enough of a difference to beat out the better support for two handed weapons.

How about this shields grant hardness to you equal to the shield bonus to AC?

[AslanCross]

I think the main problem with shields is that killing stuff quickly (with two-handed weapons) is much more effective in keeping you alive than having an extra 1 or 2 AC.

Also, many low-level spells (Shield, Shield of Faith) give better AC bonuses.

I do think active parrying is a viable fix. It's kind of a shame that it's really hard to pull off parrying by default: Melee Evasion takes several feats to qualify for, although Warblades can do it more easily (Wall of Blades).

[Coidzor]

^: It's a bit difficult without homebrewing up a lot of feats (or at least cribbing such feats from others' homebrew) to complete with that kind of feat support. But even something to compete with Power Attack by itself would be good.

3) Don't make it dependent on feats, but have the feats make it "better". The shield is pretty much THE ubiquitous weapon of medieval warfare - for all intents and purposes, everybody used one. Therefore, the shield should remain useful (and a damn sight more than +1 or +2 to AC useful) to everybody, regardless of their feat chains.

Yeah, the base thing of what a shield is needs an overhaul, not just the feats.

I'd also disagree with banning animated shields as a fix to shields in and of itself. And with actually going through with it. Since the focus should be on actually making shields better, building up rather than tearing down.

Of course, adding things on to shields as they're wielded in one's hands as opposed to magically animated is perfectly reasonable and actually adds an element of trade-off to it.

[Waker]

Well, the nice thing about the hypothetical shield miss chance that I'm proposing is that it's non-magical, so it couldn't be subject to dispel. Not to mention being available at a lower level and freeing up gold that could be spent on a different magical effect.
You could also grant Block Arrows from Heroes of Battle to all shields automatically, rather than making it a feat.

[theos911]

Gotta do geometry hw for a bit, but I wanted to put this out there

Could the AC bonus increase with BAB? What about miss chance, easier reflex save, or decreased damage from AoE things/ranged attacks?


WOW Ninja'd x4

[Psyren]

Swordguy has the right idea - sword-and-board should be an equally viable route compared to a 2-hander or dual-wielding. Removing or severely nerfing animated shields is indeed a necessary first step along this route, because going full-offense should have penalties.

[Coidzor]

Swordguy has the right idea - sword-and-board should be an equally viable route compared to a 2-hander or dual-wielding. Removing or severely nerfing animated shields is indeed a necessary first step along this route, because going full-offense should have penalties.

If your fix isn't good enough to actually feel like it'd be a trade-off, it's not a fix.

[Hyfigh]

1) The miss chance that stacks with other miss chances up to a certain percentage. Miss chance is an important thing, regardless of AC. I don't see why giving a little bit extra to a shield fighter would be unbalanced.

2) A feat structure that works with shields to also improve single-handed power attack ratios. Half of the problem with shield fighters is that their damage sucks. Let them charge(pounce), even if it isn't as effective as the real deal. One is sacrificing a little damage for more defense, the other the opposite.

3) A feat structure that allows scalable effects like the stun. The DC of shield bash is essentially static. Static DC's become less useful over time - a common problem in these level based games. Letting stuff like this scale allows for it to be used much longer and more effectively.

[Urpriest]

What about making shield-wearers automatically have a tank-like mechanic, so they fulfill a useful role besides just being well defended? Perhaps have a shield-wearer grant increasing cover bonuses to allies, or get an immediate action to block nearby movement?

[nedz]

I did toy with an idea based a little on my experience fighting against shiellds in LARP.

Basically you have to beat the shield before you can attack the weilder.
Ideally a partial block would make the chance of hitting harder, but that adds even more complexity.
There are a number of mechanisms; you could do something like d20+shield mods for shield AC, and then have a seperate AC for your armour etc.
Either roll one attack to beat both, or two rolls.

The problem with any method though is twofold:
1) you slow down combat, by adding complexity
2) you need a facing rule, which is absent in 3.0++

So we have the +1 AC rule, which simplifies all of this.

[Waker]

I just had an idea that's drunk enough to work. One of the biggest selling points to using a 2h weapon is Power Attack doubling the damage. What if Combat Expertise did the same with shields? And if you are using the miss chance idea from before, it could conceivably go up whenever you use Combat Expertise. I don't have much time on my hands right now, so I can't do the math, but someone else can do this later.

Let's say for now that Buckler grants 5% miss, Light Shield is 10%, Heavy is 15%. For every 4 points taken off from Combat Expertise, you double your miss chance. So a Fighter using a heavy shield, activates Combat Expertise for -8, increases his ac by 16 and has a miss chance of 45%

[Human Paragon 3]

I suggested a fix a while back where, like the 2x power attack bonus for two-handing, you get a 2x combat expertise bonus when you wield a shield.

[Lord Bingo]

I think adding a miss chance is the wrong way to go as it will add to the dice rolling. I like the idea of having shield bonus rise with BAB better -it sorta makes sense that as your skill as a warrior increases you become increasingly adept at defending yourself with a shield. Here is an example of how it could be done:

Light Shields add 1/2 BAB (min 1)
Medium Shields add 1/2 BAB +1 (min 2)
Tower Shields should still provide a flat +4 as they are unwieldy and more meant to provide cover anyway.

This mechanic will require no new feats, etc. and you add magical bonuses abd such as usual. You can just pick it up and go.

[holywhippet]

One of the main reasons shields are useful both in D&D and real life is for their anti-ballistic properties. Go watch 300 for an example of how useful a good shield can be against incoming arrows.

The thing to keep in mind is that different shields are useful for different purposes. A tower shield is really meant to be something to hide behind so that enemy arrows can't get you - but it's weight makes it hard to use in melee. A smaller shield like a buckler though is meant to catch incoming melee strikes, but it's limited size makes it less useful vs. arrows.

I don't agree that shields are useless in D&D though - but it kind of depends on the level of the combat. I've seen a 4th level dwarvern fighter take out a whole lot of goblins inside of a tower just because his armour + his tower shield meant they needed a 20 in order to hit him. The sword he had in his other hand did more than enough damage to kill the goblins with a single hit so he didn't need a higher damage weapon.

[faceroll]

Shield + sword doesn't scale well with level, due to the loss of damage from power attack & str. The trivial increase in AC doesn't make up for the loss of offensive power and sacrificing reach.

I would introduce a couple feats that change mechanics, not just give bonuses. Bonuses are easy to get.

Feat 1
When wielding a shield, you are counted as one size category larger for the purposes of bullrush, disarm & trip attempts, should it be beneficial to you.
notes:This makes you more competitive compared to a halberd wielding fighter, as well as makes your style more useful against larger creatures


Feat 2 [Fighter only]
When using a shield, as an immediate action, you can five foot step without provoking an AoO.
notes: Something has reach, or wants to escape from you? Want to close that gap quick? Now you can! Fighter only so anyone with a mithral buckler can pick it up.

Feat 3
While wielding a shield, you can attempt to daze your opponent as part of your attack. The DC is 10+1/2 CL+str mod. This feat is usable 3+wis mod times per day, or a number of times equal to your fighter level, whichever is higher.
notes:a good save-or-lose effect, great for control/lockdown. Unlike stunning fist, you can use it as much as you like in a round. It also isn't explicitly tied to bashing your opponent with the shield, so you don't get any two shield wielding monstrosities or something.

[Psyren]

If your fix isn't good enough to actually feel like it'd be a trade-off, it's not a fix.

How does that contradict anything I said?

[T.G. Oskar]

Honestly? I'd double the AC bonus of shields (bucklers provide a +2, light shields produce a +4, heavy shields produce a +6, tower shields produce a +8), and add a bonus to Reflex saves (bucklers provide none since you have little surface area, light shields add a +1 bonus, heavy shields provide a +2, tower shields provide a +4). Those would be shield bonuses to Reflex saves. That would evoke the idea of the classic "hide behind a shield to prevent damage", since you would reflexively gain a bonus to AC. That would be a starter. Now, the idea would be to work with enhancement bonuses, since adding a flat +1 bonus to Reflex that stacks with other Reflex saves means you'll have a higher Reflex save than most light characters, but it would be a good counterpart to light-armor characters potentially having a higher AC bonus than heavy-armored characters.

Since having proficiency doesn't mean much (I mean, only tower shields have a noticeable ACP to mean business; a -1/-2 ACP doesn't mean that much and you can wield Heavy Mithral/Darkwood Shields without the need of proficiency since the penalties are canceled by the properties), I'd collapse Improved Shield Bash with proficiency; that way, while a character without proficiency wouldn't be able to use the shield as a weapon, those who do will be able to use it without losing their AC bonus. That also gives them a nice weapon, so if you TWF you can get a somewhat decent attack potential without losing the AC bonus at all (though you might not have enough Dexterity to pull it off, hence the PHB II feat that allows you to make a shield bash with your full attack action).

The only thing would be cover, since you'd be losing the huge AC bonus for a moderate AC bonus and you'd have the same Reflex bonus, so that would need some work.

[Amphetryon]

I remove animated shields, and have them provide cover; 10% for bucklers, 20% for light, 30% for heavy, 50% for tower shields. Any 'exotic' shield gets a 5% boost.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Instead of changing the rules, you could make a Warblade or a Crusader who gets most of her damage from maneuvers. That way wielding a 2H weapon isn't so important, and at low levels the +2 AC matters a little more. At later levels you might want to save WBL by avoiding the Animated Property (in this case). This is especially important if you want various expensive armor enchantments, as you can put one on your shield and one on your armor, while you probably couldn't do that if you also had to deal with the +3 from animated.

I agree with the "just increase the AC bonus" idea, since simple is usually better, but I don't agree with it adding to reflex. Too many effects fall under reflex saves where a shield would hinder you if anything. I could see a save bonus versus spread effects like Fireball, although that gets a little situational.

[Optimator]

I was toying around with the idea that shields also apply one's strength modifier to AC. Probably with a feat. Seems fair to me. Doesn't seem like much would be unbalanced since
A: AC isn't everything.
B: High ACs aren't that unbalancing in play.
C: By the time one can pump their strength score really high, AC is getting less ans less relevant.
D: Discourages (slightly. D&D is still about striking first and striking hard) THF and makes S&B more attractive to melee combatants.
E: I don't know of any way to apply strength to AC but every other stat is represented in one way or another. Strength is disenfranchised in the AC department! Nevermind the fact that it is the key stat for melee attacks...

[T.G. Oskar]

I agree with the "just increase the AC bonus" idea, since simple is usually better, but I don't agree with it adding to reflex. Too many effects fall under reflex saves where a shield would hinder you if anything. I could see a save bonus versus spread effects like Fireball, although that gets a little situational.

The problem is that without a secondary, reasonable bonus, higher AC bonuses from shields mean little. The only moment where shields wouldn't provide Reflex bonuses are on traps, and even then you can make a good use of it (for example, dart or bolt traps).

Reflex saves really apply on two areas: area attacks and traps. Of area attacks, a shield could reliably protect against burst attacks (such as Fireball), but not spread attacks because those innately ignore cover. Of traps, you have area attacks (again, good for burst, bad for spread; remember emanation typically counts as spread AoE), actual attacks (darts, bolts, etc. which means you get both Reflex and AC against them) and pitfalls (which are mostly movement based and might not seem like fitting). A cursory observation shows that shields apply mostly to half the attacks that would require Reflex, and generally those attacks that ignore cover also ignore the bonus to Reflex saves from cover. Thus, you'd gain a shield bonus to Reflex saves except on attacks that ignore cover; the definition would be pretty much all-inclusive (covers most, if not all, instances of Reflex saves) and would make having high Dex and being on Roguish classes the main method of gaining such saving throw, but it would throw a nice bone to heavy armor wielders whom already suffer from not using Evasion and having poor Reflex saves, something that would cripple 2H weapon wielders because they have nothing like that.

Though, I also agree about eliminating animated shields. They're a nice idea, but they harm mechanics because it eliminates the idea of the sword-and-boarder to go almost exclusively weapon-based.

[Cheesy74]

Iron Tortoise does a good job of this for initiating classes. It's a really strong tanking flavor, but it nonetheless makes shields extremely viable for the task.

[Dexam]

Would it be too overpowered to have something like this (in the same vein as the Deflect Arrows feat):

Shield Deflection [General]
Prerequistes: Shield Proficiency, Combat Reflexes
Benefit: You must be holding a shield to use this feat. Once per round, as an immediate action, when you would normally be hit with a melee weapon, ranged weapon, or natural weapon you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as siege weapons) and ranged attacks generated by spell effects can’t be deflected. A fighter may select Shield Deflection as a fighter bonus feat.


There could also be Improved/Greater versions of the feat that would allow you to add the shield's AC bonus to your touch AC and/or reflex saves; and make the deflection a free action and increase the number of attacks deflected each round equal to your Dex bonus. It also means that Animated shields are no longer as impressive, as they can't benefit from this feat. Thoughts?

[JeminiZero]

The feat you probably want is Improved Buckler Defence from Complete Warrior. It lets you use 2-hander for power attacks and what not, and still lets you apply the buckler to AC, but does not negate the -1 AB penalty.

So -1 to AB for +1 to AC initially. And the tradeoff gets better once you add enhancement bonuses to your buckler (capping at -1 AB for +6 AC).

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The problem is that without a secondary, reasonable bonus, higher AC bonuses from shields mean little.

At low levels, the AC bonus really matters. At high levels, the magical enhancements you can add to the shield matter.

The only moment where shields wouldn't provide Reflex bonuses are on traps, and even then you can make a good use of it (for example, dart or bolt traps).

Reflex saves really apply on two areas: area attacks and traps.

... and a large number of arcane spells. Grease and Web come to mind. A shield should not provide a bonus in that situation.

Of area attacks, a shield could reliably protect against burst attacks (such as Fireball), but not spread attacks because those innately ignore cover.

Fireball is a spread.

Of traps, you have area attacks (again, good for burst, bad for spread; remember emanation typically counts as spread AoE), actual attacks (darts, bolts, etc. which means you get both Reflex and AC against them) and pitfalls (which are mostly movement based and might not seem like fitting). A cursory observation shows that shields apply mostly to half the attacks that would require Reflex, and generally those attacks that ignore cover also ignore the bonus to Reflex saves from cover. Thus, you'd gain a shield bonus to Reflex saves except on attacks that ignore cover; the definition would be pretty much all-inclusive (covers most, if not all, instances of Reflex saves) and would make having high Dex and being on Roguish classes the main method of gaining such saving throw, but it would throw a nice bone to heavy armor wielders whom already suffer from not using Evasion and having poor Reflex saves, something that would cripple 2H weapon wielders because they have nothing like that.

Okay, I can see this working. Might need a bit of re-wording, but if it basically means you have partial cover as far as reflex saves go, that's fine.

Though, I also agree about eliminating animated shields. They're a nice idea, but they harm mechanics because it eliminates the idea of the sword-and-boarder to go almost exclusively weapon-based.

This is what I don't understand. If AC isn't important at high levels, then why is the meleer wasting 9000+ gold on it when he could be buying something that increases his damage, or preferably his versatility? IMO the real reason to use a shield at high levels is to get the nice magical armor effects, but if you're already using up +3 on Animated there's only so much you can get before the quadratic costs kill your WBL.

[faceroll]

If AC isn't important at high levels

Higher AC reduces the amount things can power attack you by. 10 AC is much, much worse than 30 AC, as that 20 point spread means you're taking 40 extra damage/round.

[jumpet]

What about allowing shield users to double their ac bonus against one declared opponent. (ie similar to dodge). I think this kind of makes sense a shield is used actively to dodge incoming blows. Thus its handy against a single foe but less so when surrounded.