Shield Block Feat - Your Thoughts?

Scion · Feb 9, 2004

allowing thf to get 2 damage for each -1 to attack is even scarier

Edit: what about the idea above? for sword and boarders every attack that hits them they get a 20% flat chance to have the shield take the damage instead.

Make a feat that ups this to 50% and another that makes it so that they can block area effect spells and such with it.

Excess damage would fall to the character.. I think it sortof simulates what you want while still having a nod towards game balance plus realism

Stalker0 · Feb 9, 2004

Scion said:
allowing thf to get 2 damage for each -1 to attack is even scarier

But that -1 to attacks effects that third and forth swing, where's a +10 to AC could end up absorbing all 4 attacks, a lot more damage saved than PA deals.

Wolffenjugend · Feb 9, 2004

I like the concept. One thing though: shouldn't the opposed roll for the shield suffer a penalty, like when monsters attack with their secondary weapons? Otherwise, the character is sharing his attack bonus between actual attacks and blocking. Maybe if the character was on the defensive, all the bonus would go the block, but while attacking he takes a penalty?

Darklone · Feb 9, 2004

Gothmog said:
True, but then again, weapons also broke like nobody's business in actual combat. D&D having weapons being pretty much indestructible barring a sunder is very historically inaccurate, so I don't see how this feat would really be a problem game-logic wise. And the blow that shattered a shield was MUCH preferable to the same blow that would have finished the warrior without the shield- better to sacrifice the shield than your skull!

Two points (one for this and one for the thread

):
The blow that shattered your shield was pretty likely to cripple your arm as well, often without leaving the shield nearly untouched. Wielding a spear or a bastard sword in melee combat was much better if you wanted to get out unscathed since most open injuries were a deadly threat as well.

For the feat:
Think about something like Shield Specialisation (+1 AC, +2 while fighting defensively, as in the KPG update sheets), if you don't want to screw the existing combat system. Giving a higher bonus to AC would be too much. Fighter builds at level 6 with AC 35 in defense mode (without magic) are already pretty hard to hit, Doubling Expertise's bonus to AC would make it a 40.

IME, shields are fine, the problem with the sword&board style in D&D: You cause less damage, many combats are/should be won by causing damage faster than the others. If someone is difficult to hit, then the opponents go for your buddy the raging barbarian. That's a tactics problem, not a balance problem with weapons and shields.
It's obviously that a team needs team tactics. If someone plays tank, it only makes sense if the opponents attack him and not the lightly armoured spellcaster. If you're the only sword&boarder in a group with two greatsword barbarians and a TWF twink fighter, you gonna get bored.

Check out the available ACs for Fightertypes in D&D with or without shields and compare them to averaged attack values of characters of the same level. Shields make a huge difference here, often nearly halving the chance to be hit by the first attack of someone of your own level.

But you face the same problem as a single polearm wielder: Spring attack is not worth it if your buddies go for full attack action exchanges with the monsters.

Scion · Feb 9, 2004

Stalker0 said:
But that -1 to attacks effects that third and forth swing, where's a +10 to AC could end up absorbing all 4 attacks, a lot more damage saved than PA deals.

I am not sure what you mean. Expertise penalizes your attacks as well, -5 to your attacks for that +10 to ac. And yes, with this it would be bad to power attack guys with shields and expertise, isnt that how it should be? Even in the base rules if someone is power attacking you useing expertise for 5 is probably a very, very good option. The -5 to your attacks effects all of your attacks as well, just like power attack.

Since in order to use this option you have to be useing a fairly substandard build anyway plus spend a feat.... Doesnt seem too bad on paper, I have yet to have anyone actually use sword and board even with this option though.

Josh Thor · Jun 1, 2017

I pitched this to my DM going into a new campaign. He agreed to the original, basic feat, but wanted it locked behind Combat Expertise.
We're starting at lvl 2. I'm a Dwarf Paladin going for a tank role, and thought this would be awesome, so one of my 1st two levels will be fighter to get the feat quicker. We will likely make adjustments as the game goes on. I will let ya'll know how it goes!

Man in the Funny Hat · Jun 1, 2017

Some choices in 3E are suboptimal. System Mastery is exercised by the player to determine what those choices are and either accept them or avoid them as they see fit.