Boost Combat Expertise with Shields

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think the idea is as flawed as Rystil's analysis suggests. First, I notice that he uses a level 5 tank fighter vs. the ECL 4 half-dragon barbarian. Let's see what happens if we switch that up a bit:

Orc barbarian (base str 22) with gauntlets of ogre power (for a 28 strength when raging), weapon focus, and a masterwork weapon. Level 5 to be even. The orc's attack bonus is +16 (+5 BAB, +9 str, +1 weapon focus, +1 masterwork). Now, the human tank is still unhittable by Expertising for 5 and fighting defensively while using a tower shield, but that's only at level 5. Drop it down a couple levels and he's not unhittable or increase the comparison a couple levels and he won't be quite unhittable either--because Expertise caps out at 5 points, the level 5 is a very favorable comparison for the tank. If the orc picks up a bless, prayer, haste, bardsong, or some combination of those, the human fighter won't be as unhittable as he thinks either.

Moreover, remember that the tank is at -10 to hit while performing this manuever (-5 Expertise, -3 fighting defensively, -2 tower shield), so if the orc is an otherwise unimpressive AC 15 (+1 chain shirt, +2 dex, -2 rage), the human tank (str 16, weapon focus, +1 weapon for +10 to hit normally) still needs to roll decently in order to hit him.
More significantly, he's also at -10 to opposed rolls if the orc decides that he's tired of that huge AC and is going to sunder the human's weapon or shield instead of just dealing damage.

My own prediction is that this house rule would make tanks more effective in that role, but would most likely lead to increasingly interesting and tactical combats as enemies used bull rush to get past tanks and into the less protected areas of the party, disarm and sunder to destroy those pesky shields and/or to deprive tanks of what offense they do have, and trip to make tanks hittable. That doesn't seem like such a bad thing.

The only really important thing would be to make sure it doesn't apply to animated shields.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The problem with that analysis is that the Expertising character is unhittable to a character that was completely min/maxed to have the highest attack bonus, including choosing a Monster Manual race with +4 Strength. All the tank has to do is buy the standard defensive items and have 12 Dex (he doesn't even need the Tower Shield to be unhittable with the 2-for-1 Expertise at level 5). And even if he doesn't buy the magic items I assumed, he can still be unhittable *without a single magic item* to the +16 to hit orc! This is bad--seriously bad. It means that if you take one feat and don't even buy magic, just the full plate and tower shield, you're not going to get hit by any other character's normal attacks, period.

 

[Nyaricus]

The only problem. How do you deal with an animated shield? Since you're not wielding it, does it count?

can you get power attack on a dancing sword? Didn't think so.

As to the main idea here - i have to say i like it, but it does sound pretty powerful. For those who like it, i say go with it (and don't let it work with Animated Shields), for those who don't like, don't use it.

BTW, the Animated Shield entry states: "protecting her as it she were using it herself" so i guess you could argue that CE could be used in this case.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[Felnar]

by standard rules, shield use isn't that appealing
seems like you get a lot more benefit by using your 2nd hand for 2handed weapons or TWF
you could even argue that having a free hand is better than +1 or 2 AC

nice side effect that higher shield AC's would make feats like improved sunder more desirable

i agree this wouldnt work with animated shields
and it would create a possible tradeoff to using an animated shield

do people who are against this change feel that shields are underpowered like i do?
if so, what would you suggest to make them better?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Uh Felnar, I'm not sure if you missed what I posted about magical shields, or whether you don't think it's worth considering - either way, I'd be interested to know what you think. And I won't be offended, honest!

 

[comrade raoul]

So while -5 to attack for +10 damage is a good idea for the first attack and a bad idea for the second attack, -5 to attack for +10 AC is an awesome idea all the time. The more foes the better!

Quoted for truth. Unless you want to do damage as quickly as possible, a -5 to attack for +5 to AC trade is almost never harmful, and sometimes helpful, when you're trading attacks with a single opponent, and is almost always very helpful when you're being attacked by multiple opponents. Increasing the marginal benefit of the trade by another +5 unqualifiedly breaks Combat Expertise.

For balance purposes, this trade should be evaluated as granting shield users an additional +4 or +5 bonus to their AC. Only use this version of Combat Expertise if you think shield users need such a large boost; I think it's pretty clear that they don't.

 

[Evilhalfling]

Hmmm.
How bout just stealing text from the tumble skill - and applying it to shield weilders instead.

When fighting with a shield you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2 dodge bonus to AC.
When fighting with a shield you gain a +6 dodge bonus to AC when executing the total defense standard action instead of the usual +4 dodge bonus to AC.

These bonuses do not stack with those granted by tumble, and cannot be used with an animated shield.

From what I remember of sword fighting, the shield is very effective, especially if your opponent is just protecting himself. I think of combat expertise as a more difficult skill that requires a quick mind to use, while hiding behind a shield is nearly reflexive. This change gives anyone carrying a shield a little extra defense - and can hardly be considered game breaking.

 

[Felnar]

Uh Felnar, I'm not sure if you missed what I posted about magical shields, or whether you don't think it's worth considering - either way, I'd be interested to know what you think. And I won't be offended, honest!

...

With the default wealth levels and magic item abundance, every single shield-user will have a magical shield by level X, whatever that might be, and more powerfully enhanced ones as levels go by.

Therefore, they're already going to be getting a substantial AC bonus from a shield, not just 1 or 2 (for light or heavy, respectively).

That's about all I can see 'wrong' with the idea, but that's not to say it actually is a flaw, just a thought.

Personally, I quite like the idea, and might even integrate something like it into the next full-magic / low-magic-item-proliferation AE/3.x campaign.

well, i assume that characters that dont spend money/wealth on magic shield can use that money/wealth for other items (weapons/armor/misc items/etc)
this only works to a point tho, because of the exponential price jump between +bonuses
actually, that point is pretty early, its right after getting +1 armor i guess
but beyond +1, i imagine most people could find another use for the 3,000 gold difference to a +2 shield

it's worth considering that shields can count as another 'armor' slot

 

[Aus_Snow]

How bout just stealing text from the tumble skill - and applying it to shield weilders instead.

*snip*

That is, IMO, even better. Yoinked!


Felnar: Yeah, fair enough. It was just a passing thought.

 

[Felnar]

Hmmm.
How bout just stealing text from the tumble skill - and applying it to shield weilders instead.

how would you apply this to combat expertise?
i see combat expertise as one of those feats that is an improvement of an existing ability (like improved disarm/trip/etc), its basically "improved fighting defensively". Although they are supposed to stack... which doesnt quitre fit my vision.

my original thought was to give shield users a flat bonus to AC when using combat expertise
but i really feel that someone trained to use a shield should be very hard to hit if they put extra effort into it (sacraficing effort toward attacking)

i'm thinking of roman/greek warfare where shields were the major part of a persons defense
(hopefully this is true and not a creation of hollywood)