Shield Bonus to Touch AC

[irdeggman]

Would it make sense to count a steel shield as a bonus to AC against Shocking Grasp? Scorching ray? Ray of Frost? Any energy damage?

Metal is a great conductor and since yuor arm is in contact with the shield (or hand and arm) then the "effect" of the spell should penetrate shouldn't it?

In order to come up with a means of counting a shield for AC bonus against touch attacks all of these type of conditions need to be addressed. Which would, IMO, lead to a reall large and complex house-rule to address the issue - hence the RAW is best and simpliest for the D&D abstract combat system.

 

[billd91]

Would it make sense to count a steel shield as a bonus to AC against Shocking Grasp? Scorching ray? Ray of Frost? Any energy damage?

Metal is a great conductor and since yuor arm is in contact with the shield (or hand and arm) then the "effect" of the spell should penetrate shouldn't it?

In order to come up with a means of counting a shield for AC bonus against touch attacks all of these type of conditions need to be addressed. Which would, IMO, lead to a reall large and complex house-rule to address the issue - hence the RAW is best and simpliest for the D&D abstract combat system.

You already get a +3 to attack someone wearing or carrying a lot of metal. That seems enough for me.

 

[irdeggman]

You already get a +3 to attack someone wearing or carrying a lot of metal. That seems enough for me.

How about fire and cold damage?

No bonuses there and yet metal is a great conductor.

Or orb of electricity? No bonuses for wearing metal armor (unlike shocking grasp).

 

[billd91]

How about fire and cold damage?

No bonuses there and yet metal is a great conductor.

Or orb of electricity? No bonuses for wearing metal armor (unlike shocking grasp).

Then why not, in the original rules, include the conductivity issue with other metal armors, metal weapons, lots of other metal junk, yadda yadda blah blah blah. Your criticism can be leveled at the original rules just as well.

But I wouldn't even both with including any bonus for fire and cold damage for being in metal. Conducting heat requires time, even for a good conductor, and the instantaneous nature of most attack spells renders that whole question moot. There's no need to think about the different conductivity of materials, whether metal, wood, or leather, when the effect is over in a flash.

 

[TarionzCousin]

There was an "and" in there. Shield Specialization is a pre-requisite for Shield Ward. And, once you have Shield Ward, Shield Specialization does affect Touch AC - it adds 1 to your Shield AC Bonus, which then adds 1 to your Touch AC.

Ah...it's all making much more sense now. Thanks.

Parrying Shield is in Lords of Madness, p.181. Add your shield bonus to touch AC, prereq shield proficiency, fighter bonus featable.

Even better (without the prerequisite)!

 

[Zurai]

Even better (without the prerequisite)!

Not better; different. Shield Ward also adds your shield AC bonus to defense against most special combat maneuvers (overrun, trip, etc; not sunder, though), while Parrying Shield is just to Touch AC. Personally, I prefer Shield Specialization + Shield Ward over Parrying Shield, but the choice is there for the feat-starved.

BTW, Shield Spec and Shield Ward are both fighter bonus feats as well.

 

[phindar]

I've been thinking of letting a character with the Shield Proficiency using the Full Defense action be able to take Total Cover behind a heavy shield. Although I could just as easily make it a feat.

Yes, the scene in 300 was the spark behind this idea.

 

[Zurai]

The shields in 300 are tower shields, which already allow you to take total cover. They just aren't tower-shaped tower shields, that's all.

 

[Destil]

Eh, I honestly think shields could be done better. Should add to reflex saves and touch AC, but not be usable while flat footed.

One of my bigger gripes with 3.X, really.

 

[irdeggman]

The shields in 300 are tower shields, which already allow you to take total cover. They just aren't tower-shaped tower shields, that's all.

Actually in 3.5 terms they weren't:

Shield, Tower: This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance.

They definitely did shield bashes, they also used them as weapons and there is no way they were suffering a -2 penalty when fighting while holding them or when using them as weapons.

I think it was more likely they were using tactical feats like Formation Expert (from Complete Warrior) or some similar one. It also more closely fits the theme and style of spartan warriors.

But it was a movie and using game mechanics to "justify" things in a movie are like, say analyzing Order of the Stick with 3.5 rules