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: 6110804" data-attributes="member: 1465">Just briefly checked the current rules, not sure if I get them right but it seems to me that both shields and spiked shields grant +2 AC and can be used as weapon, but when you do so you don't give up the AC bonus.And actually I think this is a better idea. Giving up the AC bonus could be a fair trade, but there is the immediate complication that you have to remember that. It's not a big deal for most groups, but still there's a chance for mistake, especially if it takes long to go through everybody's turn until your next round.I don't think OTOH it would be game-breaking to just let the AC bonus apply all the time. After all, the shield is (has to be) an inferior weapon because it is primarily design as a defensive tool, cannot be as good for attacking as something that was primarily designed to attack. This is true for regular shield dealing only 1d4 damage (although this damage seems missing in the current packet!) making it at best as good as a dagger, a little less true for spiked shield that deals 1d6 already as good as a short sword which is however a typical off-hand weapon so ok.Attacking with a shield instead of a weapon would require the same action as attacking with a weapon, meaning that if you have a good weapon in your primary hand, you would not normally want to give its attack up to bash with the shield instead.So when would you attack with the shield instead of your main weapon? Mostly when you have a special ability from a feat, from the shield itself or else, that is activated only with a shield attack. Plus some occasional corner cases e.g. you dropped the primary weapon and all you have at hand is a shield.Then there is the different case of those who want to attack with the shield together with your main weapon i.e. those who want the image of sword-and-board with the benefit of two-weapon-fighting. And here's the problem: if the AC bonus remains all the time, the shield cannot be as good as the best off-hand weapon otherwise sword-and-board is straight superior to 2WF. However even if you don't get the AC bonus for a round when using the shield as an off-hand weapon, if the shield is just as good as such off-hand weapon then SaB is still superior to 2WF, because it's as good as 2WF with the added flexibility that you can instead get +2AC whenever you prefer, and we've also introduce one more thing to track on a round basis.There are other possible ways out of this, without yet requiring to forgo the AC bonus: (a) decrease the base damage of shields even further, to make SaB and 2WF even more different, used for different tactical purposes, or (b) make SaB and 2WF identical by introducing a general rule to 2WF that it grants +2 AC (with the same rules as decided for SaB), reducing the difference between SaB and 2WF to aesthetics only.</blockquote>

Verification