Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zragon 04-22-07, 04:20 PM	Ive been thinking of away to make shields more useful becuase i dont no anyone who uses a shield ever in game. tell me what your think. intead of getting the AC bouns a shield would grant, you get a 5% chance when a attack hits you that you block it with the shield. this goes for anything that give a shield bouns. the shield gets 5% per ac that you would normally get, and can go up to 50% chance (that inculds magical bouses that van be add to the shield) please be nice when telling me what you think
Neutronium_Dragon 04-22-07, 05:17 PM	The problem is that, loosely speaking, the AC bonus already gives you a 5% improvement per point of AC bonus. Now, as an additional thing which probably requires a feat or two to pick up - say, prerequisite of Shield Specialization and maybe Shield Ward - that would be a good addition.
Arcade 04-22-07, 08:47 PM	Actually, the 5% chance translates different than an extra +1 AC. It's like the difference between cover and concealment. For instance, let's say we have someone using a tower shield. If your opponent has a 50% chance of hitting, adding the tower shield in the normal game means the chance of getting hit is 30% (taking 20% off the miss chance). But under these rules, you would only have a 25% chance of getting hit. This system makes it so shields are better against high attack percentage creatures and worse against low attack percentage opponents.
stargate525 04-22-07, 10:46 PM	So basically treat them as cover? Sounds good to me.
Krusk 04-23-07, 12:31 AM	could be cool, but expect to see a lot of people not using shields, until higher levels. no one is going to use buckler for 5% miss chance anymore, but lots of people are going to use the +5buckler for a nice 30% miss chance.
Vaelan 04-23-07, 01:48 AM	You do realize that you're reducing the overall effectiveness of shields in most cases, right? A 5% chance to avoid being hit is worse than +1 to AC unless your AC is so low that your opponent will hit you 95% of the time regardless of your shield.
Zragon 04-23-07, 02:31 AM	will the reason behind trying this was the fact that ive never after 10 years of playing seen anyone one use a shield. i figure they didnt see much of a reason to so thought of a way to keep the base idea of the shield but make more effictive so more people might want to use a shield. and from personal fighting exp and training, the shield acts more like cover than armor.
Arcade 04-23-07, 08:57 AM	Well, they are providing an AC bonus, which is the same as cover. adding a percent miss chance is the same as adding concealment. Personally, I use shields on my fighters, but that's because they are dwarven defender types worried about getting the best AC possible. You also have to consider ways to get around the shield. A +5 tower shield provides 45% cover with no way for a skilled swordsman to overcome that miss chance. Other fighters have blind-fighting or improved precise shot to help out other percent miss chances.
Nadaka 04-23-07, 08:59 AM	So you want to make the shield more attractive by making it mathematically weaker?
starfire311 04-23-07, 09:10 AM	will the reason behind trying this was the fact that ive never after 10 years of playing seen anyone one use a shield. i figure they didnt see much of a reason to so thought of a way to keep the base idea of the shield but make more effictive so more people might want to use a shield. and from personal fighting exp and training, the shield acts more like cover than armor. excuse me if I assume that you guys have banned the animated shield, because if you didn't, then everyone should have a shield at some point. maybe you should ask your players why they don't use a shield, I love shields, my dwarven crusader has used 1 since level 1. At 1st level the trade of for a dwarf with a 16 stength is Waraxe 1D10+3(8.5) +2 AC Great Sword 2D6+4(11) so for teh cost of 2.5 points of average damage you get a +2 AC. I'll take that +2 AC every time, obvously the higher the strength you get the bigger the disparity in damage bonuses is, but if you are playing a regular fighter type, that +2 AC is better than +2.5 damage IMO. Shields are plenty good. They even have some great feats for them now. I am also a big fan of 2 handed fighting for the right character, also. The thing is S&B, TWF, and 2HF are all good for different characters, and people see somethign like S&B or TWF, and think it sucks, because it is bad for tehir 2HF character to use, the thing is that they are all more or less balanced, and don't need a whole lot of fixing, because different styles are for different characters, it is hard, if not impossible to make a character that is extremly effective at all 3 styles.
Arcade 04-23-07, 10:27 AM	I'll agree with Starfire that bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are good arguments for sword and shield style. But it's not the whole picture. Power attack is the only feat required to make a two-handed weapon fighter effective. Two weapon fighters and sword and shield fighters need more, perhaps many more, than this. Also power attack allows a greater difference in damage as levels increase. However, gaining AC is much cheaper through magic armor and shield since you can split the enhancements up. Gaining full plate +5 costs 26,650. For that price, a shield and sword fighter can get full plate +3 and large shield +4 and get an extra 4 points of AC. And they still have room to increase their AC by another 3 points.
SlinkyTWF 04-23-07, 11:17 AM	Here is how I handle it. Caveat: Rule set is skill-based, no classes, and feats have been converted to a skill/sub-proficiency system which it too much to 'splain atm, so I sum up. Under my Armor skill (which includes knowing how to wear and maintain certain types of armor and use shields as sub-proficiencies), if you choose the "shield block" proficiency (could use this as a Feat in the standard d20)... - you get a 5% chance per 4 ranks of armor skill to attempt to block incoming attacks from a single opponent who you designate either at the beginning of your round or at the instant in which you get attacked (same mechanic as the Dodge feat). I'm not sure what the best way to scale this would be in standard d20, perhaps if you have the feat, the %chance increases by 5% for every 4 fighter-type class levels? - the chance is modified by the relative size modifier of your opponent (e.g., if you are medium-sized, gnomes can duck under your shield and Godzilla just doesn't care that you have one). - You still retain the Shield Bonus to AC.
starfire311 04-23-07, 11:41 AM	Power attack is the only feat required to make a two-handed weapon fighter effective. Two weapon fighters and sword and shield fighters need more, perhaps many more, than this. Also power attack allows a greater difference in damage as levels increase. see, I don't see S&B or 2HF having any required feats, they are differetn from TWF in that respect. both S&B and 2HF let you choose feats that augment your style.
RobbyPants 04-23-07, 12:01 PM	You could, perhaps, create a blocking mechanic. The shield bearer would make a block check, using up an attack of opportunity (limiting the number of uses). They roll an an opposed attack roll against their attacker, effectively making their attack roll their AC for that attack. It would be nice for a higher Str character (or one with Combat Reflexes), but I'm not sure if its enough of a fix (one you run out of blocks, it's pretty much useless). It also involves more dice rolling, which could be a problem...
Castegyre 04-23-07, 12:16 PM	Side note; Can someone point me to where the animated shield can be found. What book, etc?
Krusk 04-23-07, 12:19 PM	animated shield dmg pg. 218
Castegyre 04-23-07, 12:25 PM	Thank you. I went right past it when I tried to look it up. :P
Nadaka 04-23-07, 02:55 PM	I used an excel sheet to calculate hard numbers for your conversion... On the range of attack/defense values where the attacker has to roll a number between 2 and 20 to hit (and this includes nearly all apropriate encounters) and shield bonuses of +1 to +10. The following chart lists average damage in terms of % of damage per hit, not counting criticals. Avg dam avg dam Shield with miss with AC 0 50.00% 50.00% 1 47.50% 45.26% 2 45.00% 40.79% 3 42.50% 36.58% 4 40.00% 32.63% 5 37.50% 28.95% 6 35.00% 25.53% 7 32.50% 22.37% 8 30.00% 19.47% 9 27.50% 16.84% 10 25.00% 14.47% As you can clearly see, in all cases with the above assumptions, using a 5% miss chance instead of +1 ac will result in the shield user taking more damage on average. Not only this, but the larger the investment made to increase shield bonus, the worse the disparity becomes.
starfire311 04-23-07, 03:32 PM	I used an excel sheet to calculate hard numbers for your conversion... On the range of attack/defense values where the attacker has to roll a number between 2 and 20 to hit (and this includes nearly all apropriate encounters) and shield bonuses of +1 to +10. The following chart lists average damage in terms of % of damage per hit, not counting criticals. Avg dam avg dam Shield with miss with AC 0 50.00% 50.00% 1 47.50% 45.26% 2 45.00% 40.79% 3 42.50% 36.58% 4 40.00% 32.63% 5 37.50% 28.95% 6 35.00% 25.53% 7 32.50% 22.37% 8 30.00% 19.47% 9 27.50% 16.84% 10 25.00% 14.47% As you can clearly see, in all cases with the above assumptions, using a 5% miss chance instead of +1 ac will result in the shield user taking more damage on average. Not only this, but the larger the investment made to increase shield bonus, the worse the disparity becomes. interesting chart, and it reinforces my assumption, that I would rather have +10 to AC than a 50% miss chance anyday. yes there are some characters, like lightly armored ones that would actually do better witht eh miss chance, but if you are making a defensive character, you will want to have a high AC.
Nathreet 04-23-07, 04:08 PM	The problem isn't that shields are bad. The problem is that shields are good and nobody you know realizes that. Also, as people have pointed out, your alternative is actually worse than a shield. And let's look at the alternatives: TWF: Extra attacks but -2 AB, and essentially +2 to +7 AB for your enemy thanks to your lower AC. And your weapons are about 30% weaker since you can only spend half as much money on each. Each point of AB translates to 0.05 hits per attack (and, don't forget, a hit > an attack; "bird in the hand worth 2 in the bush"). So you don't actually get twice the hits with TWF, plus your enemy is getting more hits on you. THF: A little extra damage, but again your opponent is getting a lot more hits on you. In general, "sword and board" is hands down the best tactic. The first exception would be the TWF rogue (which only works w/ reliable sneak attacks, otherwise the rogue is better off without it; even if he manages a few sneak attacks). The second would be THF with an animated shield at higher levels. Both styles also benefit from a very high magic campaign, where AC doesn't matter as much. Even then TWF is questionable for a non-sneak attacker.
Nadaka 04-23-07, 06:04 PM	One could argue that the ability of a THF's huge damage (with things like power, and leap attack taken into account) to end a fight much more rapidly will mean that the enemy gets to hit you fewer times and therefore may actually prevent more damage that the increased AC of a should would.
Nathreet 04-23-07, 06:21 PM	One could argue that, but it wouldn't actually be true. The shield guy deals much more damage against the THF than the THF does against the shield guy, b/c the THF guy hits much less often. Power attack only makes things worse, as you get even fewer hits (it only helps if you have low damage or your opponents have a very low AC). Try a couple test builds if you don't believe me, one w/ THF, the other the same w/ a shield. The SHF utterly annihilates the THFer. The exception is THF w/ an animated shield, which is better. And I dunno about the many feats out there in various books. Maybe those would change things, or maybe other non-core shield feats are better. I dunno.
Vaelan 04-24-07, 03:08 AM	will the reason behind trying this was the fact that ive never after 10 years of playing seen anyone one use a shield. If you want more people to use shields, you're either going to have to make shield bash better, which would mean making TWF not suck, or implement greater defensive bonuses. Perhaps you could bump up the defense bonus by 1 for each kind of shield and make it apply to reflex saves as well. Or you can allow the shield-based feats in the PHB2. and from personal fighting exp and training, the shield acts more like cover than armor. Cover (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#cover), in D&D, gives a bonus to armor class, just like a shield before your rules. You are making it act like concealment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm#concealment).
Kylain 04-25-07, 05:31 PM	One could argue that, but it wouldn't actually be true. The shield guy deals much more damage against the THF than the THF does against the shield guy, b/c the THF guy hits much less often. Power attack only makes things worse, as you get even fewer hits (it only helps if you have low damage or your opponents have a very low AC). Try a couple test builds if you don't believe me, one w/ THF, the other the same w/ a shield. The SHF utterly annihilates the THFer. The exception is THF w/ an animated shield, which is better. And I dunno about the many feats out there in various books. Maybe those would change things, or maybe other non-core shield feats are better. I dunno. Well I wouldn't say the THF is that screwed, there's no one forcing him to use Power Attack when he's having a hard time hitting. If he can't hit anything, he can just swing normally and roll with that 5+% increased miss rate from the shield. His higher damage should even things out until your shield guy ends up with a truly massive AC boost from the shield. And at that stage of the game there's likely a large list of other possible factors in such a duel. The main reason I personally have moved over to the no-shield camp was that damage reduction starts mucking around with things. A THF can chop through DR, even if he doesn't have the right weapon. A shield monkey has a much harder time accomplishing that. One could argue that you should never have to be forced into a situation where you don't have the right material weapon on hand, but you can't really be assured that you'll always have your tackle box of Greatswords made from various things.
starfire311 04-26-07, 02:14 PM	A THF can chop through DR, even if he doesn't have the right weapon. A shield monkey has a much harder time accomplishing that. One could argue that you should never have to be forced into a situation where you don't have the right material weapon on hand, but you can't really be assured that you'll always have your tackle box of Greatswords made from various things. the thing is with ToB, S&B is much better now, My dwarven crusader uses a shield and his 5 manuevers are Divine surge +8D8, Mountain hammer +2D6 ignore DR/Hardness, Foe Hammer +2D6 ignore DR, Crusader strike Heal 1D6+7, Revitalizing strike heal 3D6+7 3 of the maneuvers really make DR trivial even for a one handed weapon. The biggest detriment to the S&B style is the floating shield, if you remove that S&B becomes very good, since they are the only ones that get a shield.