Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shayuri" data-source="post: 511233" data-attributes="member: 4936">I like it!There's some areas that need to be hashed out, but as a general concept, I really like it.It's intuitively valid, for one thing, and it meshes well with the revised Shield spell (which is basically just a magic, self-animated, very large shield).I dunno if I agree with the Reflex save bonuses though. For one thing, it raises the whole ugly spectre of "when do the bonuses apply?" which can't really have a solid, simple ruling. Complex rules are, IMO, to be avoided. Which is one reason I like calling shields cover bonuses, because calling them armor bonuses opens up all kinds of cans of worms.Sweet idea on bucklers too. I feel silly that it never occurred to me before. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'd be of the opinion that shield AC should probably apply to flatfooted AC, if only because it does under the existing ruleset and it seems unfair to change that. Bucklers would be the exception, I think...perhaps a rule that you can only choose a target for the buckler AC on your action.Touch AC is tricky... On the one hand, I tend to agree that if armor doesn't protect, a shield wouldn't. But the cover bonus from the Shield spell DOES protect, as do other cover bonuses to AC. There needs to be some easy way to remember when to apply cover AC and when not to. Now, a shield spell is a magic construct, and it's not touched in any way by the caster...maybe that's the critical difference? But then, the canny player will note, what about a magically animated physical shield? Will that apply to touch AC?Deefeecult!</blockquote>

Verification