Changes in shields?

[glass]

Yeah, it is a bit wonky. While I can see it giving a bonus to help deflect magic missiles or the like, it's patently ridiculous for a shield to give you a bonus to keep from falling into a pit trap.

Didn't they say avoiding pit traps would be a skill check rather than an attack roll from the trap?


glass.

 

[jtrowell]

I think that if shields still have en enhancement bonus when the 4th edition is released, that it won't stack with bonuses from other items.

It was the same way for rings of protection and armor in previous editions, and it allowed someone whose armor had a big bonus to use others rings, while others could use a ring of protection to keep using their armor with only a +1 bonus but with cool abilities.

I could see a dwarf fighter still using the low level +1 armor that give a free daily healing surge as a free action (still useful at level 20), and a +5 shield of something to keep his AC high enough.

This would prevent the extreme of a shield user having +7 AC at high level versus a two-handler, while preserving the base +2 bonus from the shield, and allowing him more choice for his defenses.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

a sword and board fighter should be able to become a real good blocker. It all depends on the base to-hit-chance vs. a fighter if a +2 bonus from a shield levels is worth giving up big damage potential.
So I will wait for the PHB to see why shield have enhancement bonuses and how they stack. I still assume that balance will be the deciding factor...

 

[jaer]

The problem with that is that is it makes good magic shields mostly worthless.

Not really. It makes shields with enhancement bonuses less worthwhile if your armor has a better enhancement bonus on it and vice versa.

But it gives the player more options.

If he has a +3 shield, he can pick the Firewalker Plate instead of +3 plate. Similarly, as soon as he gets +4 plate, he can ditch the +3 shield for that new Shield of Spell Reflection (or maybe considering the campaign, the +3 shield and firewalker plate is a better choice and he sticks with that combo!).

The player is no longer looking to pick up the largest bonus in both slots, and is now focusing on the best bonus from one slot in conjunction with the coolest power in the other.

 

[CleverNickName]

They could also just make avoiding a pit trap not be a reflex save. Seems perfectly reasonable for it to be an athletics or acrobatics check. You may note the crushing boulder doesn't use reflex saves but isntead lets you use athletics to jump over it or strength to slow it down.

Brilliant.

 

[CleverNickName]

a sword and board fighter should be able to become a real good blocker. It all depends on the base to-hit-chance vs. a fighter if a +2 bonus from a shield levels is worth giving up big damage potential.
So I will wait for the PHB to see why shield have enhancement bonuses and how they stack. I still assume that balance will be the deciding factor...

Inevitably, one of my players is going to want to dual-wield a pair of spiked shields...

 

[frankthedm]

+7 is a huge deal no matter what level you are. Given that you just roll a d20 to hit no matter what, it's almost impossible to give monsters a hit bonus high enough that they have a reasonable chance to hit someone with +7 ac without making it so armor class is irrelevent for anyone who is not ultra heavily armored.

I think that already happened

Kraken
Full Attack: 2 tentacles +28 melee (2d8+12/19-20) and 6 arms +23 melee (1d6+6) and bite +23 melee (4d6+6)
Challenge Rating: 12

Storm Giant
Full Attack: Greatsword +26/+21/+16 melee (4d6+21/19-20) or 2 slams +26 melee (1d6+14)
Challenge Rating: 13

Iron Golem
Full Attack: 2 slams +23 melee (2d10+11)
Challenge Rating: 13

 

[small pumpkin man]

Not really. It makes shields with enhancement bonuses less worthwhile if your armor has a better enhancement bonus on it and vice versa.

But it gives the player more options.

If he has a +3 shield, he can pick the Firewalker Plate instead of +3 plate. Similarly, as soon as he gets +4 plate, he can ditch the +3 shield for that new Shield of Spell Reflection (or maybe considering the campaign, the +3 shield and firewalker plate is a better choice and he sticks with that combo!).

The player is no longer looking to pick up the largest bonus in both slots, and is now focusing on the best bonus from one slot in conjunction with the coolest power in the other.

In 3.x, yes, but from what I've seen of 4e, all Shield/Armours give extra special bonii and a decent enhancement bonus for their level, meaning all you get for using a shield is the base bonuses and a minor add on ability, which is fine, it may even be worth it, but like I said, it makes high level magical shields fairly uninteresting.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I'm betting they actually solve this by giving two-handed weapons better damage enhancements. Like, a greatsword can get "of Massive Flames" to do +1d10 flame damage whereas the longsword only gets "of Burning" to do +1d6. So damage scales better for two-handers and defense for shield-bearers.

Maybe when you wield weapons two-handed all damage sources increase 50% or something? So a "+5" Greatsword would have +5 Att and +7 Dmg.

The rule might be "Add together all static +'s of Dmg bonus (Str, Magic, Class ability, etc.), then increase by 50%.

Or something ...

 

[jtrowell]

Look at the exemple armor : it is low level, yet its special ability (a free healing surge once by day) is still as usefull at level 30, with the healing provided still being 1/4 of your total.

If I find a +3 large shield of whatever at level 11, I might still be using the magic armor that I got at level 3, while still having the same relative AC as my paladin friend with the +3 full plate of something and non-magical shield.

Maybe WoTC will do something else, but I find this solution elegant, and a way to increase the time I can use my magic armor or shield before feeling that I really must upgrade it.