Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="brislove" data-source="post: 3958013" data-attributes="member: 49861">@Primitive_ScrewheadI don't see a problem with shields obscuring the "sweet spot" simple because they greatly reduce the damage that the character can do (about 60%) in most cases. so a +5 heavy steel shield is a 35% chance to block effectively.so you lose 60% of your damage for 35% chance to not get hurt. It's a reasonable trade-off as that 35% can be converted into healing spells that your cleric is using. Making it a viable party-benefit based choice, but if you clone a guy and have one of them use a +5 heavy steel shield the shield guy will almost certainly lose, because the hits he takes are bigger. With your variant I feel it makes the shield either way TOO good (against single high damage opponents) or horrible against multiple attack monsters, or multiple enemies.Ultimately I think the variant you offered is overall beneficial to shields if used by clerics who can cast fire shield against multiple attack enemies, and just block against single attack monsters. Make the wizard take mending/repair damage spells, and heal up the adamant shield. Or if the wizard/cleric cast the mass version of fire shield on encounters when it's more beneficial everyone should have a shield.</blockquote>