Boring shields

[eamon]

Two weapon fighting has been the way to build a high damage fighter or ranger in both 2e, 3e and PF and have been showing up far too often as a result.

You may have missed my post, but you're drawing premature conclusions. TWF rules aren't in the playtest.

On a side note, in 3.5, THF was clearly a much easier route to high damage than TWF due to power attack, high ability score requirements for effective TWF, and the many feats needed to make TWF work well - and of course due to the fact that TWF granted rather few bonus attacks compared to the normal attack routine. Which isn't to say TWF couldn't work, but it certainly wasn't the most common way to build high-damage melee warriors.

 

[Stalker0]

I would love them to keep the 4e rule about adding shield bonus to dexterity saving throws (at least where it would be appropriate). I thought it really helped to bring shields to where they should be.

 

[Savage Wombat]

On a side note, in 3.5, THF was clearly a much easier route to high damage than TWF due to power attack, high ability score requirements for effective TWF, and the many feats needed to make TWF work well - and of course due to the fact that TWF granted rather few bonus attacks compared to the normal attack routine. Which isn't to say TWF couldn't work, but it certainly wasn't the most common way to build high-damage melee warriors.

Oh, it was common all right. It just didn't work, usually. The number of times I've seen people build ginsu knife fighters with six attacks a round, and then get outperformed by the guy with the big hammer...

The real problem with TWF in 3.5 was the fact that you had to have a full action to get any damage. A THF still got his one big hit, even if he had to move.

But anyway, yes, shields should be more useful.

 

[ferratus]

Oh, it was common all right. It just didn't work, usually. The number of times I've seen people build ginsu knife fighters with six attacks a round, and then get outperformed by the guy with the big hammer...

I remember being awed by the strong guy with the big hammer, but he was always a cleric. Bull's strength + Divine Power + other buffs was usually enough to overcome the penalty to hit and increased the awesome damage. The fighter generally missed more often and the power attack damage never became really impressive unless he had a belt of strength +6 or something.

The real problem with TWF in 3.5 was the fact that you had to have a full action to get any damage. A THF still got his one big hit, even if he had to move.

I don't really see that as being a big problem in 3e, since most of the time you didn't move all that much. Most of the time you acted as a stop-gap in a choke point for weaker party members. The was no real incentive to move around, and light/med armour + Dex was often as good as any heavy armour.

 

[Stalker0]

Oh, it was common all right. It just didn't work, usually. The number of times I've seen people build ginsu knife fighters with six attacks a round, and then get outperformed by the guy with the big hammer...

that's because they were playing ginsu knife fighters and not ginsu knife rogues or rangers.

6 attacks + 10d6 sneak attack, or +10 damage on favored enemies was how TWF got it done. but without those bonuses, THF was better.

 

[SageMinerve]

I'd make use of the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanics with Shield.

Buckler: when you're attacked by a light weapon, attacker is disadvantaged.
Shield: when you're attacked by a non-heavy weapon, attacker is disadvantaged.
Tower shield: Anyone attacking you is disadvantaged. When you attack with anything but a light weapon, you're disadvantaged.

Something like that...

 

[RangerWickett]

From my limited experience with fake weaponry, I feel like a shield should be better at protecting you than the rules state. But accurately modeling a shield is more complicated than these rules probably want.

Accurately? I'd say something like one per round you can get an extra +2 AC against a single attack from a target you're aware of, but not while you're in a grapple.

I dunno, maybe that requires "Shield Training" as a feat or something. Or a fighter can forgo an extra attack in order to block an incoming attack?

 

[fuindordm]

I think shields would be used frequently if the player could actively block attacks, a la Warhammer, instead of just giving a passive bonus to AC.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree shields should be more flavorful.

I think the challenge is to make all fighting styles more or less equally viable in play, while retaining meaningful tradeoffs.

So for example Sword + Board is less damage than TWF or THF, but better defense than either -- enough to be viable, not so much to be the "always superior" choice like it was in 1E or BECMI. TWF IMO ought to have a slight defense advantage over THF, though never as much as S+B, but always a bit of a damage disadvantage compared to THF. THF I'd give the most damage to, but least defense. THF is the "go big or go home" option; TWF is less high payoff but more consistent damage; S+B provides a balance of offense and defense. Then consider balancing with range- and reach-weapon styles ...

And then of course there's balancing the shields with the three armor types, plus unarmored. For example, I think Heavy + Shield needs to ultimately be strictly better than Light + Shield or Medium + Shield, though H+S takes more effort to be proficient and benefits less from Dex (so finesse fighters push to light armor while Str fighters head to heavy). Medium + Shield needs to be a viable middle ground for classes like the cleric.

Ugh ... I don't envy the developers their challenge of getting it all to work out.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Here's my take

TWF should be a theme anyone can take, balanced by the fact that it allows more consistent damage AND some extra AC, whereas THF should have higher DPR but no AC bonus. So, like +2 AC if you are dual-wielding swords + you get a second attack but only 1/2 str bonus (or even none) on each for damage. Higher level feats or theme benefits could increase the str bonus on each, from 0 to 1/2 to full str mod on each swing.

When you get other bonuses and magic weapons and so on, you may see high DPR, such as combining it with some rogue levels and advantage (presuming advantage is not that easy to come by).

I like a big two-handed sword to be the ultimate damage, while two weapons are very offensive but also have some defensive benefit, and sword and board is least offensive but the shield benefit, needs to be higher than +2 for a heavy shield. And it should definitely benefit Dex saves too, IMO, as per 4e. Or maybe a S+B theme would allow a shield bash attack and boost the shield bonus, or grant interrupt-like block moves that would count as an action against your next turn's action. Definitely better to block that dragon's talon or duck for cover from his Breath weapon now than be a charred, pulpy stain on the floor next to his other victims.

Just an at-will tank guy with his shield blocking interrupt move, could ostensibly just plough his way through really tough enemy blows ala Captain America and wait for the right moment to retaliate. I.e. Being defensive so your friends can be offensive. Probably a good thing to have a counter move to do a free sword thrust against any enemy who runs away from you, even if you've already used your defensive shield move for the round.

Slowing you down by 5 feet is a good idea too. So the big slow hulking tank CAN drop his shield to TRY to jump over the chasm there. Leave it to magic shields to provide full benefit with no slow-down.