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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6110589" data-attributes="member: 1465">I think +2 is a good maximum for shields in this edition, and in general it's better than +1 max because it leaves some room for putting different shield types in the game, for the obvious reason that you can then have both +1 and +2 shields...I definitely liked how 3e handled shields, because each category (buckler, small, large, tower) had its pros and cons, thus unlike armors there was never a shield that was better than another for everyone. Since 3e already had plenty of ways to boost one's AC, it could have also had +3 or even +4 shields but I don't think they were even added to the game. Obviously that would be too much for 5e bounded accuracy, but at least I hope 5e replicates the variety of 3e, or even improves it if possible, by having 4-6 different types (not just sizes) of shields.Maybe that's the province of a module, that adds some second-order pros and cons to each piece of equipment, therefore generating more types of everything. But overall the 3e differences were very understandable even by casual players and could be simplified even more.Spikes, I'm not really fond of, IMHO they look dorky even in fantasy... I would like to know if there was any real historical use for them at all... In any case there should absolutely be a tactical drawback for adding them to a shield or armor, besides the additional gp cost, since the latter can easily become null and void at a certain level.edit: also, it's very much unacceptable that a shield can function both as a shield and as a weapon as good as others at the same time... it's not hard to avoid design goofs that could lead characters to choose shield as their only weapon or even worse two shields</blockquote>

Verification