Wizards with shields?

[LokiDR]

The fighter gets a ton of AC out of this, a mage gets a smidge. Why, because the fihgter would have no shield without an animated shield, the mage just goes to his mithral bucker and looses what 3 ac. woopedydo, I loose 3ac but my bucker has fortification on it instead of animated. The fighter looses out on the whole AC tower+4, and whatver the + is up to 5. So mage looses 3 ac fighter can loose up to 9. Of course the fighter probably will go with a large shield anyways over the bucker since he wouldn't want the -2 to hit penalty. So a mage looses what 1 or 2 ac haven't checked the 3.5 stats, and the fighter losses 7-8 ac.

This was just flat out a dumb decision.
1. it doesn't make much sense since the dang thing is floating a few feet away from you.
2. it doesn't really solve some balance problem, so its a useless change.

Apples to oranges. The mirthral buckler was the best option, but the tower shield stacked. That is two places to put armor special abilities.

Now, bucklers won't stake with tower shields. That is a good change. There is no default item that has no ASF chance, you have to have one custom created. Mirthral bucklers are still a problem, but half of the equasion has been taken out.

 

[Caliban]

Huh. I've never seen that. So basically, they changed the Animated Shield because of munchkins? *sigh* That seems like the motto of 3.5: there were munchkins, so we nerfed everything!

A lot of changes like this probably originated in the RPGA. It can be a pretty competitive environment, with a greater focus on combat over Roleplay. A lot of players delight in being able to play "powergamed" characters and attempting to "break" modules.

I've seen the 11th level cleric with a beed of karma, a Violet Purple Prism Ioun stone, and the Extend and Persistant spell feats buff up his entire party with +5 weapons, armor, shields, and ammunition, plus Persisted Divine favors, and the wizard handing Shield spells out via the Ioun stone.

It can be pretty bad with the proper items.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Apples to oranges. The mirthral buckler was the best option, but the tower shield stacked. That is two places to put armor special abilities.

Now, bucklers won't stake with tower shields. That is a good change. There is no default item that has no ASF chance, you have to have one custom created. Mirthral bucklers are still a problem, but half of the equasion has been taken out.

other than hypotheical builds do you actually know anyone who got bonuses from two shields?

I honestly don't see how this now lack of stacking is a hit, since I doubt shields stacking was ever intended and was just a loop hole a few DMs let people exploit.

Before in most games you either had a animated tower shield which didn't go with your bracers of armor but hey maybe you got some benefits like fort out of it or you had a mithral shield and the same problem occured.

Now you don't have the animated shield as a viable option, but you still have the mithral shield but now its even better because it will stack with your bracers of armor. All the really did is power up shields for mages over all but take the cool flying enchanted option out as a way to your bad AC end. No balancing occured just a reduction in variety.

 

[Caliban]

other than hypotheical builds do you actually know anyone who got bonuses from two shields?

I honestly don't see how this now lack of stacking is a hit, since I doubt shields stacking was ever intended and was just a loop hole a few DMs let people exploit.

My Dwarven fighter/wizard PC in 3.0 often used the Shield spell and a +2 Steel shield. +4 Armor bonus from the shield, +7 Cover bonus from the Shield spell.

No that doesn't work, since they both give the same bonus. I may have to switch to an enchanted tower shield now. *sigh*

 

[LokiDR]

other than hypotheical builds do you actually know anyone who got bonuses from two shields?

Me Munchkins is munchkin, and that was an hole in the rules.

I honestly don't see how this now lack of stacking is a hit, since I doubt shields stacking was ever intended and was just a loop hole a few DMs let people exploit.

So, why was bag-o-snails changed? I never saw a person use that trick. I have said it many times, but it bears repeating.

Good DMs can make up for bad rules, but that doesn't make the rules good.

Before in most games you either had a animated tower shield which didn't go with your bracers of armor but hey maybe you got some benefits like fort out of it or you had a mithral shield and the same problem occured.

Cover does stack with armor. The mirthral buckler doesn't. Now they both work. Tower shield now has ASF which rules it out, where the mirthral buckler doesn't.

Now you don't have the animated shield as a viable option, but you still have the mithral shield but now its even better because it will stack with your bracers of armor. All the really did is power up shields for mages over all but take the cool flying enchanted option out as a way to your bad AC end. No balancing occured just a reduction in variety.

They were both holes in the rules. Now one is effectively closed. Now they just need to close the other hole and we'll be good.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

So, why was bag-o-snails changed? I never saw a person use that trick. I have said it many times, but it bears repeating.

Good DMs can make up for bad rules, but that doesn't make the rules good.


Cover does stack with armor. The mirthral buckler doesn't. Now they both work. Tower shield now has ASF which rules it out, where the mirthral buckler doesn't.


They were both holes in the rules. Now one is effectively closed. Now they just need to close the other hole and we'll be good.

point 1, they changed th bag of snails thing because they screwed up. It was a dumb, dumb, dumb change. The ordinary use of cleave with whirlwind attack is fine and should be able to happen. Now it can't. They made a bad rule to solve the problem of what they see as bad players. So it was a bad change like many of the changes in 3.5.

point 2: actually it being a cover bonus reminds me that I don't think it was possible to enchant a tower shield with armor mods. It wasn't really a piece of armor it was a mobile wall and it functioned entiely differently. So I doubt it could ever even be animated, unless they faq'd it.

point 3: Actually neither were holes in the rules. Allowing wiz/sor to use some armor in a limited fashion isn't a hole in the rules, heck with the advent of the eldrich knight this even is more fitting than before. Mage types can and should use armor on occasion. It wasn't and isn't unbalanced for them to get access to shields so no hole existed or exists now. The only problem is now there is less versatility.

 

[Darklone]

point 1, they changed th bag of snails thing because they screwed up. It was a dumb, dumb, dumb change. The ordinary use of cleave with whirlwind attack is fine and should be able to happen. Now it can't. They made a bad rule to solve the problem of what they see as bad players. So it was a bad change like many of the changes in 3.5.

And the same problem still persists. If they had changed Cleave such as "you may hit one opponent only once per round with an additional Cleave attack", the whole bag of snails problem, which was IMC more a problem of leaders and mooks (the leader was stronger without 20 mooks to support him), wouldn't have existed.

Now they "fixed" whirlwind, but that wasn't the problem.

 

[Aaron2]

I dont know if this has ever been addressed before, but i was looking for a rational explanation of it in the PHB (3.0 and 3.5) and cant find one.

I can't find one either. Why is a wizard with a dinky buckler penalized, but one lugging around a 50 lb bag of treasure not? What about a wiz with a party member's dead body drapped over his shoulder? That's certainly more restrictive than a small shield.


Aaron

 

[Darklone]

Encumbrance gives the same penalties as armours.

 

[Iku Rex]

Having only one hand free does not as near as i can find, prevent or penalize any spellcsating, so why would using a shield in one invoke a penalty.

Logical fallacy: Arguing from your conclusion.

Obviously having only one hand free is not sufficient to ignore ASF. If it was, then shields and armors that don't cover your arms wouldn't cause ASF. All the rules (in 3.0 anyway) say, is that to even attempt casting a spell you need one hand free.

A better explanation for ASF is that spellcasting involves moving your entire body. It's not just about wiggling your fingers. (Although you might be able to pull it off with only one hand free, you probably won't.)