|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 3:46AM
#21
|
|
|
Shields need options that help you hit and hurt others with your primary weapon. Not just give you more AC and allow you to hit people with your shield. ONE of the shields PRIMARY uses was knocking other weapons aside to create openings and throwing your enemy off balance so you could hit him easier.
If all I'm doing with a shield is getting a higher AC, or attacking people with it like it's a weapon I don't feel like I'm using a shield, because a mechanic that fills one of it's primary uses is missing.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 8:02AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
Shields SHOULD be considered one of the options of 2nd hand weapon options.
ALL second hand weapon options SHOULD increase your AC to some degree. The primary point of having one is to deflect incoming blows. The shield is just particularly apt at it. So using a shield would no doubt incurr a higher chance of deflecting those blows and thus a higher AC bonus.
However, like other second hand weapons you SHOULD be able to hit people with a shield. Now, obviously smacking someone with a shield doesn't do as much damage as stabbing them with sword, however it does make it quite a bit more difficult for them to hit you back.
As such, bashing with the Shield should be an attack made just like with a secondary weapon, but this attack would have low damage (1d3), but would do a fortitude attack against them. The larger the shield, the easier it is to hit with this fortitude attack. The attack, if successful, would give the opponet a substantial penalty to their attack on their next turn. (I was considering suggesting it would stun the person, but that would obviously be too powerful).
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 8:13AM
#23
|
|
|
Shields SHOULD be considered one of the options of 2nd hand weapon options.
ALL second hand weapon options SHOULD increase your AC to some degree. The primary point of having one is to deflect incoming blows. The shield is just particularly apt at it. So using a shield would no doubt incurr a higher chance of deflecting those blows and thus a higher AC bonus.
However, like other second hand weapons you SHOULD be able to hit people with a shield. Now, obviously smacking someone with a shield doesn't do as much damage as stabbing them with sword, however it does make it quite a bit more difficult for them to hit you back.
As such, bashing with the Shield should be an attack made just like with a secondary weapon, but this attack would have low damage (1d3), but would do a fortitude attack against them. The larger the shield, the easier it is to hit with this fortitude attack. The attack, if successful, would give the opponet a substantial penalty to their attack on their next turn. (I was considering suggesting it would stun the person, but that would obviously be too powerful).
I sorta like your idea but disagree with it.
A shield makes it easier for YOU to hit them as well as making it harder for them to hit you. A shield is already doing the second part simply bt having an AC, it's the first part that's missing. Also, you don't usually do any substantial damage at all when knocking an opponent off balance or knocking their weapon to the side and it's a typical aspect of using a shield, so I don't think it should require an off hand attack either nor do I think it should do damage. Just by being skilled and using a shield you should be able to do this.
Defensively shields are already pretty good, it's offensively that's the problem, as is the idea that using a shield offensively means hitting people with it for damage when it usually means opening up their guard so that their vitals are exposed to that sharp pointy thing in your other hand that's far deadlier than a bonk to the noggin with a shield.
Your idea would better represent a shield if they had to make a reflext save and if they lost they lose their dex bonus or recieve a ac penalty against your next attack against them.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 8:28AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
At the same time though, your aveage mook picking up a shield that is not trained with it extensively will be only able to block or attack. Not both (what you are recommending). Shield Specialization should, IMO grant a +1 to hit with your primary weapon in addition to the increase in the shield's output. Would that work?
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 8:32AM
#25
|
|
|
At the same time though, your aveage mook picking up a shield that is not trained with it extensively will be only able to block or attack. Not both (what you are recommending). Shield Specialization should, IMO grant a +1 to hit with your primary weapon in addition to the increase in the shield's output. Would that work?
A lot closer. I like your idea a lot. Though a +1 is a bit minor, however we can't ask for the world. A +1 to attack would at least shows they recognize this fact. It's a start but I wouldn't want it to be the end all beat all, I'd like maneuvers and such as well, options to go further into it the more trained you are.
The big problem is, it doesn't much training to get the basic benefit of this, I'm not sure it should require more than the training any class that has shield proficiency has. I mean seriously this is HOW you use a shield, if you can't do the basics of this I wouldn't call you TRAINED in shield use.
So yes if you are a untrained mook picking up a shield you shouldn't get a benefit, but I don't think it should require any feats beyong simple proficiency.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 9:00AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
One thing that the designers could do to focus more on shields and TWF is to allow people that are trained in these items to have a series of immediate actions or swift actions that they can choose to use.
Immediate actions and Swift actions are a great control mechanism as you get 1 per round. Higher levels of ability can give you more powerful versions of the Immediate action and Swift action to use but once you commit your weapon to an action then that value is used up.
This then makes it easy to represent the extra hit with the TWF (or multiple hits with a more powerful version).
You could also have things like the stunning bash of the shield or using the shield as an immediate action combined with a 5' step to stop people from walking past the shield fighter. This control keeps the fighter from wandering all over the battlefield and doing that shield bash combined with five other extra things.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 9:47AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Oct 10, 2007
|
Bingo! Swift and Immediate Actions dependant on TWF and/or fighting with a shield. I mean, creating "Parry" or "Shield Block" abilities would be easy using Immediate Actions. Along those lines, I'd say Shields are better at preventing ranged attacks and against many opponents at once, while TWF (I mean here an offhand weapon, not a shield you hit with) is easier to prevent attacks from a single opponent.
Existing feats and abilities like the "Deflect Arrows" feat should be examined (remember there was an Epic Deflect Arrows type feat that worked with any WF weapon). I love the idea too of a bodyguard-eque feats that allow you to prevent attacks against other allies around you or prevent that especially nasty critical hit. Existing thigns here would be like the Rogue "Defensive Roll", which btw was a req for Epic Dodge- that broken epic feat which just let you pick one successful attack per round that just plain misses you. This also harkens very much to some central ideas that I see within the "Defender" archetype (or role I guess is the term).
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 11:21AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2006
|
I could see an immediate action parry manuever to allow an opposed role for an attack. I could also see a swift action to attack the reflex defense and grant yourself combat advantage (+2 hit, counts as flat footed from 3.x).
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 14, 2007 - 11:35PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2005
|
I could see an immediate action parry manuever to allow an opposed role for an attack. I could also see a swift action to attack the reflex defense and grant yourself combat advantage (+2 hit, counts as flat footed from 3.x).
This is a good comprimise. But if you choose to bash someone with the shield, you SHOULD take the same penalty (if any) that you take when using a second weapon.
Although it may be easier to hit someone with a shield when they are already up in your face, you would normally charge in and move your shield before yourself in such a way that trying to slash them at the same time would be difficult, but once you have succeeded in striking them, your follow up attack would be easier.
But, also, it is important in terms of game balance not to make shields ultimately superior to having a second weapon. Although realistically a 2-weapon fighting mode is inferior to a shield in just about any given scenario, there needs to be an option in the game for the fake fantasy cliche even if it is not realistic.
|
|
|
|
6 years ago ::
Nov 15, 2007 - 12:16AM
#30
|
|
|
Bingo! Swift and Immediate Actions dependant on TWF and/or fighting with a shield. I mean, creating "Parry" or "Shield Block" abilities would be easy using Immediate Actions. Along those lines, I'd say Shields are better at preventing ranged attacks and against many opponents at once, while TWF (I mean here an offhand weapon, not a shield you hit with) is easier to prevent attacks from a single opponent.
Gotta take exception to that, historically, at least, though I know historical stuff really has nothing to do with D&D. 
Shields that don't provide a large amount of cover aren't that great at anti-ranged defense if the person with the bow is directly targetting you. A bowshot at a close enough range that the trajectory of the arrow is relatively flat easily gets past a shield, simply because the defender doesn't have enough time to react. (In indirect fire situations, where you've got people firing in flights at long range so that the arrows come in at a steep angle, smaller shields are slighly more useful than normal, if only because it's easier to shadow your smaller profile from that angle.) Large shields work well against ranged weapons because they effectively provide cover, but they only work very well in a rank-and-file sorta combat; if you get flanked, you're fragged, 'cause large shields are unwieldy. But when you come up against the front of a phalanx with large shields and stabby weapons (spears or gladii,) you're screwed. On the other hand, smaller shields are immensely useful in skirmish combat, because the very nature of a shield tends to create openings to strike into. Two-weapon fighting is historically limited in scope, and seemed to be primarily used against piercing weapons, where a minor deflection was all that was needed to turn an attack into a miss. It works significantly less well against 'power' weapons like longer, heavier swords, scimitars, and axes/mauls; you don't have the leverage to properly counter an incoming strike, and you'd be better off with a shield or a two-handed weapon. And it's no use at all against ranged weapons.
...Okay, now that I got that off my chest...
I love the idea too of a bodyguard-eque feats that allow you to prevent attacks against other allies around you or prevent that especially nasty critical hit.
Yes, yes, yes.
|
|
|
