shield bonus & being flat-footed.

[krupintupple]

greetings all,

although i cannot find it anywhere, and suspect i'm wrong, when one is flat-footed, do they lose their shield bonus as well?

the only reason i ask is because it would seem that to use a shield bonus, such as physically moving a shield to intercept a blow, would require at least some knowledge and dexterity.

this becomes more confusing as a character with two-weapon defense gains a shield bonus whenever they are weilding two weapons - wouldn't they need to be able to be 'aware' and not flat-footed of the situation to be able to parry with two axes effectively?

thanks in advance!

 

[javcs]

By RAW, Shield bonus contributes to AC against everything except touch attacks (and then sometimes, given the right feats).
In that it's similar to Armor bonus.

For your second question, is said TWFer 'wielding' his weapons at the time? If so, then yes, if not, then no.

 

[mvincent]

when one is flat-footed, do they lose their shield bonus as well?

Nope. In D&D, you get your shield bonus to AC even if you are held, paralyzed, asleep, etc.

Not saying it's realistic, merely that is how D&D handles it. There are odder things in D&D... combat is just handled abstractly, is all.

this becomes more confusing as a character with two-weapon defense gains a shield bonus whenever they are weilding two weapons - wouldn't they need to be able to be 'aware' and not flat-footed of the situation to be able to parry with two axes effectively?

Again, while denying them the bonus might seem 'realistic', it isn't intended by the D&D rules (and wouldn't really be fair, balance-wise).

 

[Storme]

Yes, d20 writers aren't fighters and have little experience of the working of weapon, experience and combat (samurai are focused on two weapon fighting, the two-handed sword having little resemblance to a real two handed sword, etc).

I suggest, as a house rule, remove shield bonus from ac vs flat footed. The issue I think is that shield bonus is a deflection bonus, as is found in some magic items that aren't shields (ring of protection, etc). To solve the problem, don't make a shield bonus a deflection bonus (except maybe in the case of Shield spell for balance). Make it a SHIELD BONUS to AC and it will all make sense (including stacking with a ring of protection).

Note: My brain is a mound of dead matter so some of this might not make sense to the trained eye. Correct where appropriate. Hehee

 

[shilsen]

Yes, d20 writers aren't fighters and have little experience of the working of weapon, experience and combat (samurai are focused on two weapon fighting, the two-handed sword having little resemblance to a real two handed sword, etc).

I suggest, as a house rule, remove shield bonus from ac vs flat footed. The issue I think is that shield bonus is a deflection bonus, as is found in some magic items that aren't shields (ring of protection, etc). To solve the problem, don't make a shield bonus a deflection bonus (except maybe in the case of Shield spell for balance). Make it a SHIELD BONUS to AC and it will all make sense (including stacking with a ring of protection).

Note: My brain is a mound of dead matter so some of this might not make sense to the trained eye. Correct where appropriate. Hehee

Shield bonus to AC is not a deflection bonus in the rules, but is actually a ... wait for it ... shield bonus to AC.

 

[frankthedm]

Look at a typical mini with a shield, especially older metal minis. See how the shield is fused to the body? That is how this rule set treats shields. As a passive defence that does not need to intervene on an attack. The shield is just there. Defender' s skill ignored, of no help agaist even a hatchling dragon's fire, just the same as having 10% better armor . A few recent feats help move away from this, but on the most part, that shield is welded on and going nowhere.

rather than actively opposing a foes attack.