Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AstralFireIX 12-06-07, 10:43 AM	REVISION 4: Aggressive Shield Tactics [General, Fighter] The best defense is a good offense, and a shield is the best defense... Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Fighting or Agile Shield Fighter Benefit: As part of a full attack or charge action, once per round you may make a Shield Bash attack at your highest base attack bonus with -2 penalty. This Shield Bash attack deals no damage, but obscures your opponent's view and disorients him. He must make a Fortitude Saving Throw (DC 10 + ½ your base attack bonus + your Str modifier) or be considered staggered for 1 round (until just before your next action). The target also takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class and Attack Rolls for the duration of the effect if he fails his saving throw. This feat does not work on a target two or more size categories larger than you, nor any Constructs or Undead who are immune to effects which require Fortitude Saving Throws. You cannot use your normal Shield Bash attacks in the same round as this attack. You do not gain the benefit of your shield's bonus to Armor Class this round, regardless of Improved Shield Bash or any other feats or effects which would normally specify otherwise. Special: This feat can be taken as one of a Fighter's bonus feats. Thoughts?
rimble 12-06-07, 11:57 AM	I can't think of a good way to make that work. Everything I've come up with seems too powerful to me. I dunno, here are some thoughts: - Make it take the place of a regular shield bash attack. You need to declare you're doing Stunning Shield before the attack. - Set the DC to 5 + Damage Dealt (although no damage is dealt). The player will have plenty of ways to get the DC higher: critical hits, buffs, magic shield, larger shield, Power Attack, etc. - Apply the Staggered condition for 1 round, Dazed is too much. - If you prefer your DC calculation (it's more controllable than the one I proposed, which is very nice) I'd replace 1/2 Character Level with 1/2 Base Attack Bonus. The problem though is it doesn't scale: critical hits won't be more likely to stun, larger shields aren't more likely to stun, etc.
Garonak 12-06-07, 12:53 PM	Regular shield bash attack. Not swift action. Way to powerful. I would probaly shape it like stunning fist.
AstralFireIX 12-06-07, 01:15 PM	Aggressive Shield Tactics [General, Fighter] The best defense is a good offense, and a shield is the best defense... Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Two-Weapon Fighting or Agile Shield Fighter Benefit: As a swift action, once per round you may make a Shield Bash attack at your highest attack bonus. This Shield Bash attack deals no damage, but obscures your opponent's view and disorients him. He must make a Fortitude Saving Throw (DC 10 + ½ your base attack bonus + your Str modifier) or be considered staggered for 1 round (until just before your next action). The target also takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class and Attack Rolls for the duration of the effect. You cannot use your normal Shield Bash attacks in the same round as this attack. I'd replace 1/2 Character Level with 1/2 Base Attack Bonus. The problem though is it doesn't scale: critical hits won't be more likely to stun, larger shields aren't more likely to stun, etc. Eh, if you enchant your shield, it's more likely to hit. The point of shield bashing wasn't to damage so much as throw 'em around, if I understand correctly. The Base Attack Bonus for save is a good suggestion. I originally wanted to make this a stagger effect, but I wasn't sure if it was a good idea since stagger normally applies under a specific condition. I'd rather keep the swift action if possible, in order to promote mobility. It's not modeled directly after Stunning Fist because that's an anatomy attack, and this is more keeping them off-balance (the AC portion) and shovin' hard (the Fortitude portion).
rimble 12-06-07, 01:57 PM	I'd rather keep the swift action if possible I think that's the most unbalancing part of the whole idea. If you insist on keeping it then make the player give up the AC shield bonus that round too, regardless of any other Feats that say otherwise. And stop with the -2 AC and Attack Rolls, dazed was just absurd, but staggered is already bad enough for something you can do EVERY round, especially for FREE, at 1st level (Human Fighter)! A Monk can do a similar thing a very limited number of times per day, giving this away 'for free' is very powerful. Maybe limit it to a situation: like you can do it on a charge, or while flanking, or against a flat-footed opponent, I dunno. This is really really powerful.
AstralFireIX 12-06-07, 02:14 PM	I think that's the most unbalancing part of the whole idea. If you insist on keeping it then make the player give up the AC shield bonus that round too, regardless of any other Feats that say otherwise. That's fair enough. Since this feat requires Improved Shield Bash anyway, it shouldn't run into problems with people thinking that that feat overrides such a clause. I'm also imposing a -2 penalty on the shield attack. And stop with the -2 AC and Attack Rolls, dazed was just absurd, but staggered is already bad enough for something you can do EVERY round, especially for FREE, at 1st level (Human Fighter)! Even if you're now giving up your shield bonus against all attacks for the round? A Monk can do a similar thing a very limited number of times per day, giving this away 'for free' is very powerful. Maybe limit it to a situation: like you can do it on a charge, or while flanking, or against a flat-footed opponent, I dunno. This is really really powerful. The Monk's also not renowned for being particularly powerful, on the other hand, stunning is more powerful, and at higher levels, running out isn't that easy. They also get the feat for free. This requires 2 feats with a high Dex or 3 feats as a prereq.
CryoSilver 12-06-07, 02:20 PM	Giving up your shield bonus leaves you no worse off than someone with a greatsword.
AstralFireIX 12-06-07, 02:29 PM	Giving up your shield bonus leaves you no worse off than someone with a greatsword. Except that you spend more money and feats on a shield + weapon than someone with a Greatsword does on just their weapon, typically. I'm kinda iffy about removing the penalties to attack and armor class as a result... You're already forgoing a potential +12 to AC, or say +7 and Heavy Fortification, which can hurt if you're facing multiple opponents. A spellcaster or martial adept can still get off a pretty nasty effect on you with a standard action, too.
rimble 12-06-07, 04:14 PM	I don't know, I can't make it work. It doesn't fit into any convention. Monks do something similar on a very limited basis. Spellcasters can impose status effects using limited resources. Rogues can impose status effects if they Sneak Attack and then trade in Sneak Attack dice. I'd rather see this feat cause some sort of already established effect. Like maybe it works like Improved Bull Rush for the Sword & Boarders (who may not necessarily take Power Attack) or maybe causes some sort of Knockdown/Trip effect but not as a Free/Swift action. Why suddenly, with a Feat, can just shields do something like this? Isn't my mace upside your head much more dazing? Why can't I daze you with my offhand mace as a swift action? Why can't I slow your movement with a slashing weapon and the right Feat? Why can't I make you deflate with a piercing weapon and the right Feat? It's just not right.
MnemonicSV 12-06-07, 04:45 PM	Things that need to be fleshed out: prerequisites: Your prerequisites are too low. A 1st level human fighter can take this feat. That's bad. A free attack at first level (even a 0 damage one) is bad. Only a monk can do that, and that's a class ability! (barring TWF of course). Shield bash attack at -2 penalty: Since it is an extra attack (not part of a regular attack routine) you must specify that the attack is made at your full base attack bonus -2. Otherwise you can't know what number to even start with for the attack. Saving throw... +1/2 base attack penalty: + 1/2 character level would be more in line with other feats of this nature. -2 penalty to Armor Class and Attack Rolls: Since this appears in a different sentence than the save vs. staggered effect, it seems that a target is automatically affected by the penalty, even if the save is successful. Not good. Clarify that a successful save negates the penalty as well as the -2 to attacks and AC. considered staggered for 1 round: Should some creatures not be immune to this? Specify that creatures such as constructs, undead, oozes, plants, incorporeal creatures, or any other creature immune to crits is not affected. Special?: Specify whether this should be considerd a fighter bonus feat. While not one of these things on their own break the feat, put them all together, and this feat is very broken. Keep working at it. Use the Shield Slam feat (complete warrior) as a template. Or just use Shield Slam. It's better, despite it's prereq's.
AstralFireIX 12-06-07, 07:58 PM	I don't know, I can't make it work. It doesn't fit into any convention. Monks do something similar on a very limited basis. Spellcasters can impose status effects using limited resources. Rogues can impose status effects if they Sneak Attack and then trade in Sneak Attack dice. This feat is made in a ToB-type environment. Fewer limits, and something like this doesn't make sense to limit to 1/encounter unless it's actually a maneuver. Why suddenly, with a Feat, can just shields do something like this? Isn't my mace upside your head much more dazing? Why can't I daze you with my offhand mace as a swift action? Why can't I slow your movement with a slashing weapon and the right Feat? Why can't I make you deflate with a piercing weapon and the right Feat? It's just not right. Because a giant plank of metal you've learned how to use offensively works differently from a giant blade of metal or a giant club. It also obscures your vision. Ever since complete warrior, these kinds of specific effects have been coming into the game. prerequisites: Your prerequisites are too low. A 1st level human fighter can take this feat. That's bad. A free attack at first level (even a 0 damage one) is bad. Only a monk can do that, and that's a class ability! (barring TWF of course). The only way a level 1 human fighter can take this feat is if he's already taken Two-Weapon Fighting - which is a free attack. Shield bash attack at -2 penalty: Since it is an extra attack (not part of a regular attack routine) you must specify that the attack is made at your full base attack bonus -2. Otherwise you can't know what number to even start with for the attack. -2 penalty to Armor Class and Attack Rolls: Since this appears in a different sentence than the save vs. staggered effect, it seems that a target is automatically affected by the penalty, even if the save is successful. Not good. Clarify that a successful save negates the penalty as well as the -2 to attacks and AC. Fixed, thanks. considered staggered for 1 round: Should some creatures not be immune to this? Specify that creatures such as constructs, undead, oozes, plants, incorporeal creatures, or any other creature immune to crits is not affected. This isn't a precision or anatomy-based effect... However, I do think creatures two or more size categories larger than you should be immune, which I am inserting into Revision 3. This shouldn't work on a dragon. Special?: Specify whether this should be considerd a fighter bonus feat. Seems kinda redundant with the [Fighter] tag, but okay. Use the Shield Slam feat (complete warrior) as a template. Or just use Shield Slam. It's better, despite it's prereq's. This isn't for me, I'm making it for one of my PCs. Shield Slam requires you to give up your other attacks for the round, which basically prevents the user from actually attacking with his real weapons while trying to gain the benefit of the attack. I'm trying to make this viable.
MnemonicSV 12-06-07, 11:48 PM	The only way a level 1 human fighter can take this feat is if he's already taken Two-Weapon Fighting - which is a free attack. Ahhh... but the "free attack" gained from TWF is one that requires you to use a full attack action. As this feat currently stands, you are not required to take a full attack action in order to use it. Which means a fighter can gain this as an extra attack to his normal attack made as a standard action. A clever warrior can and will abuse this. Like making one attack (as a standard action), then moving (as a move action), then attacking again (with this feat, as a swift action). At level 1? I don't think that's quite right. The only feat that could let you do something like that is maybe Bounding Assault, but look at the prereq's for that feat... pretty steep. For that matter, as it stands a warrior could use this feat to only perform move actions on his turn, like say two moves, or even a full-out run, and still get that free attack. Even worse, that warrior could use that swift action at any point during those move actions... so he can basically "spring attack" with it without losing stride on a full-out run (which even Spring Attack itself cannot accomplish). I think it's the whole "swift action" thing that's breaking this feat the most. This isn't a precision or anatomy-based effect... However, I do think creatures two or more size categories larger than you should be immune, which I am inserting into Revision 3. This shouldn't work on a dragon. This feat simply doesn't work for constructs or undead. Such creatures (indirectly) cannot be staggered. Treating them as staggered would basically mean treating them as having 0 HP for a round. If either of those creatures have 0 HP, they are destroyed. That's a discrepancy just waiting to be abused. They're immune to effects that require Fort. saves anyway.
AstralFireIX 12-07-07, 11:09 AM	Eh, I was trying to hold out on the swift action for the sake of maneuvers, but you have a point with the double move action. I agree that constructs and undead are immune to this. I didn't think that really needed to be said, given the whole 'immune to most Fort saves' thing. Things immune to crits are not immune to this, however, since that's working on a different mechanic.
ToastedAmphibian 12-07-07, 07:39 PM	OMG You Staggered My Construct, and a Baby Treaent!
Optimator 12-08-07, 12:08 PM	I like it a lot. Shields need some lovin'.