Shield Block Feat - Your Thoughts?

Greetings all. I've gotten such great feedback from you guys in the past that I thought I'd run a new house rule by you.

The Situation:
I have two fighters in the party I'm DMing, with roughly equivalent BAB and strength bonuses. One of them uses a greatsword (we'll call him GS), one a longsword & shield (we'll call him LSS). Now, LSS does significantly less damage than GS, with approximatetly the same likelihood of hitting. In theory, this is offset by the armor class bonuses the LSS gets from his shield. In practice, the trade-off doesn't seem to be even, especially with the new 3.5 2x power attack rules for GS.

For the record, LSS has never once complained about this. His likes LSS for character reasons. So it's not a case of a player complaining that "I'm not powerful enough!" So no need for anti-min-maxing responses . I'm just looking for a longer-term way to make the LSS style more balanced vs. GS.

The Concept:
Shields do not provide merely passive defense (via armor class) but can provide active defense as well, in the form of Blocks. In concept, this active defense should be more beneficial in situations more like single combat, where the number of attacks is fewer - active blocking should be much less effective, for instance, when surrounded by many foes. Further, a large shield should be better at blocking larger weapons, while a small shield should be more effective at blocking smaller weapons.

In my opinion, the feat should meet these criteria in order to effectively implement my concept.

The Feat:
Shield Block: When not flat footed, characters with Shield Block may make one block attempt per round against an attack that would otherwise hit them. When a hit has been scored against the character, but before damage is rolled, the character must announce his block attempt. The block attempt is an opposed attack roll vs. the attack roll made by the opponent. If the block roll meets or exceeds the opponent's attack roll, that attack is blocked. The block roll bonus consists of BAB, Strength, and Shield Enhancement Bonus, modified by a -4 penalty for any size difference between the shield and the weapon being blocked (in either direction). The character does not suffer penalties for attacking with two weapons, nor does he lose his shield bonus to armor class.

An Example:
Someone with a greatsword (GS) attacks the character, who uses a longsword and shield (LSS). He hits, with a 25. LSS has a block bonus of +14, from +9 BAB, +3 STR, and +2 shield. LSS needs a block roll of 11 to successfully block the attempt.

Other Comments:
I've done some extensive analysis of this in excel which I will be happy to provide for anyone interested. Functionally, this turns a single combat between GS and LSS from GS' favor into LSS' favor, so in that manner some might think the advantage from this feat is TOO great. To mitigate this argument, I must point out that (i) it does cost a feat, and (ii) this superiority is only true in single combat, or when the character is subject to a small number of attacks. In more general terms, when fighting against a larger number of foes, GS will still be the superior mechanical choice. So, what this feat does is create *some* circumstance in which the LSS is superior.

What are your thoughts? I've provided a poll (or at least I intend to, if I can figure out how) so that those of you who do not feel like commenting specifically can still make a quick declaration of opinion.

Thanks for any feedback you can provide!

I don't think that a feat is the appropriate mechanism for introducing such a huge change in the way combat works.

It would be more appropriate to introduce a general method for blocking attacks and then include feats to make those work better and/or reduce penalties.

Cheers

Plane Sailing said:

I don't think that a feat is the appropriate mechanism for introducing such a huge change in the way combat works.

It would be more appropriate to introduce a general method for blocking attacks and then include feats to make those work better and/or reduce penalties.

Cheers

Click to expand...

I agree, this is a big change in the system, not just an enhacement for a feat. My problems with it (and what many people have criticized with some of my ideas in the past is its too roll intensive. Basically you will have your shield guy making an extra rolls all the time to block attacks, which wears down the game.

My suggestion to alleviate this is to have the block mechanic only come up in certain situations:

1) Against critical hits. If a critical hit is scored, the block effect comes into play to negate the crit.
2) Against ranged attacks, similar to the deflect arrows feat but you can keep your mechanic if you wish.

This increases the "coolness factor" of the feat because its crunchy to just get to block attacks all the time, its cool to save your butt once in a while on those crits.

One mechanic I've been thinking of would be Block, a standard combat action available to everyone (and a Feat, "Improved Block").

Block: The Block action functions as an AoO against incoming blows. If you've saved an AoO from last round, you may use it to block an incoming attack. Each round, a single saved AoO may be used to gain a Dodge bonus equal to 1/2 your BAB. You must have a shield, two-handed block weapon*, or off-hand weapon to Block. When successfully Blocking, your weapon or shield takes damage as though it were attacked with the Sunder action.

(*) Two-Handed Block Weapon List: quarterstaff, spear, halberd, doublesword, chain, urgosh, hooked hammer.


Improved Block
You are particularly adept at parrying blows.
Prereqs: BAB 4+, Combat Reflexes, Dodge
Benefit: You are not limited to a single Block action each round, but you still need one AoO attempt saved per use of Block. When using the Block action, you gain an additional +1 bonus to your AC. Furthermore, both your weapon and your opponent's weapon take damage when you successfully use the Block action.

-- N

If you think shields are ineffective, wouldn't it be easier to just to increase a shield's AC bonus. Say +1 for bucklers, +2 for light and +4(or +3) for heavy. The ability to buy AC bonuses much cheaper for shields is also a factor that may not kick in until 5th level or so.

Its fairly easy to speadsheet avg. damage per round to determine where the breakpoint is.

Aaron

Nifft said:

One mechanic I've been thinking of would be Block, a standard combat action available to everyone (and a Feat, "Improved Block").

-- N

Click to expand...

Well, here was my first thought: Anybody who wishes to can "save" attacks from their turn to use as blocks later in the round - and if you don't get attacked, you just lose the action. And, to help shield-wielders, they get a free one. Then, per the first comment above, there actually might be a bunch of extra rolls. That seemed like too much.

Regarding "a bunch of extra rolls," it would really only be the one guy, once a round, IF he even got attacked, so I don't see it slowing things down too much.

Aaron2 said:

If you think shields are ineffective, wouldn't it be easier to just to increase a shield's AC bonus. Say +1 for bucklers, +2 for light and +4(or +3) for heavy. The ability to buy AC bonuses much cheaper for shields is also a factor that may not kick in until 5th level or so.

Its fairly easy to speadsheet avg. damage per round to determine where the breakpoint is.

Aaron

Click to expand...

Re: the spreadsheet, well, yes and no. I'm the spreadsheet king (grin), and I can show you the pretty-darned-in-depth analysis I've done of this. The problem with finding breakeven, as you call it, *is* pretty trivial, *given* an assumption of your opponent's attack bonus(es). In reality, in a campaign where your opponents attack bonuses can vary greatly (say +3 to +15), this is less true.

In point of fact, the LSS style *can* actually be superior, if, say, it increases your AC from 20 to 22 against opponents with a +3 attack bonus - you literally reduce the number of hits by 2/3 (from 18-20 to only 20), or 67%! Then again, against somebody with a +15 attack bonus, you're only reducing it by 1/7 (from 7-20 to 9-20), or 14%. So your suggestion of finding the "right" amount, while a good one, is difficult to implement in a precise manner, depending on situation.

It sounds like you guys are so-so to negative on the feat idea. What about my original block idea, per my response to Nifft above? That version has the added advantage of benefitting two-hand wielders as well!

PS - Nifft - I love the Nifft the Lean stories.

Aaron2 said:

If you think shields are ineffective, wouldn't it be easier to just to increase a shield's AC bonus. Say +1 for bucklers, +2 for light and +4(or +3) for heavy. The ability to buy AC bonuses much cheaper for shields is also a factor that may not kick in until 5th level or so.

Its fairly easy to speadsheet avg. damage per round to determine where the breakpoint is.

Aaron

Click to expand...

I much would prefer this method to making the game more complex. The way I see it, in 6 seconds of a fight you are parrying, blocking, dodging and attacking. To take a feat just to be good at blocking seems kinda foolish, that is until you look at some of the other feats designed for the game. For depicting a more realistic scenario, I would give LSS the advantage over GS as he swings his shielded arm to parry blows that would normally hit GS. Should it be more complicated? Ugh, no, IMO. It bothers me a bit about the AC bonuses for shields too, but I don't want to add a feat, skill or proficiency just to make it happen.

the_bruiser said:

PS - Nifft - I love the Nifft the Lean stories.

Click to expand...

Yay! I feared I was the only one on these boards acquainted with them. The world presented is 1/3 of the basis for my homebrew world.

Anyway, my final thoughts:

1) D&D already has a mechanic for avoiding damage -- high AC. Don't add a new roll to combat, tie Blocking into AC somehow.

2) Make sure that the Block mechanic is limited to a few times per round, or only against a single opponent per round (like Dodge). It should NOT be an effective tactic against multiple foes.

-- N

If you have Dragon 301 (the Swashbuckler issue), have a look at the Parry rules and feats. It's not too much of a stretch to turn parries into Shield Blocks, and is more in line with the defensive focus of the weapon and shield style.

The discrepancy is more evident at low levels where most campaigns and npc's live, but at higher levels the one with a weapon and a magic shield will start to break even, or even surpass the two handed weapon fighter.

If you want to implement a new game mechanic requiring a die roll because you think it adds some thing strategicly to the game that is one thing, but if you are just looking to balance things out more between party members I would just add +1 AC to shields making them slightly more effective.

The other consideration is that not all people of the world have a strength of 16-20. Take two 1st or 2nd level fighters with strengths between 10-14 and see if the discrepancy is as great.

Granted, A level 4 fighter with weapon spec., an 18 str and power attack with a gs can unleash hell ... if they hit.

Also consider the dodge feat. Any one can take it and it doesn't require a shield to use. In fact ... the great sword wielding character can take it. This thought is off the cuff, but if you want a feat 'shield blocking' perhaps it could allow you to have a +2 AC vs. a single target. It is better than dodge in one respect, but it has draw backs. One, it forces you to use a shield and it doesn't help you climb the feat tree to mobility, spring attack, etc. Just a thought.