why do shields suck so much?

sake · Post by **sake** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:35 am

wrote:
I mean you could easily draw a double sword that would seem sensible, but WotC's artists just... didn't...

A sensible double sword would be almost indistinguishable from a double headed spear, which is a whole nother weapon by the rules. (not that WotC's artists tended to care much about making gear look distinct)

I blame Star Wars for both starting the double sword craze AND that stupid short handle crap that was used in most of the D&D art for them.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:09 am

sake wrote:
wrote:
I mean you could easily draw a double sword that would seem sensible, but WotC's artists just... didn't...
A sensible double sword would be almost indistinguishable from a double headed spear, which is a whole nother weapon by the rules. (not that WotC's artists tended to care much about making gear look distinct)

I blame Star Wars for both starting the double sword craze AND that stupid short handle crap that was used in most of the D&D art for them.

There's also the option of going the Pumpkin Scissors route for double swords, if you'd like something a bit more fantastic and unique. It has a second handle to help control momentum, and it was primarily a horseman's weapon (in the universe of the show). The show actually describes the history of the weapon, details of its use, etc. I find it notable in that it's a fictional weapon where the authors actually seemed to put some thought into that matter.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1411/130 ... 2c.jpg?v=0

Sure, that's not real either, but it's cool and the way it's presented in the show you can buy it, right down to the special shoes they need to wear.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:40 am

Double sword in each hand, dudes.

And one more in the mouth.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:52 am

sigma999 wrote:Double sword in each hand, dudes.

And one more in the mouth.

What about one with your foot, like the original Grievous?

Akula · Post by **Akula** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:09 am

Even worse. A sword implanted in each knee and elbow. Then a double sword in each hand.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:46 am

Kakita would be ashamed of all of us.

Kakita sez: "One man, one sword, one strike."

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:59 am

Mirumoto says, "... two swords serve [your] lord better than one..."

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:13 am

Akula wrote:Even worse. A sword implanted in each knee and elbow. Then a double sword in each hand.

Gurren Lagann.

Fuck shields, I'm piloting a psionic golem covered with drills.

Caedrus · Post by **Caedrus** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:17 am

Sir_Neil wrote:Mirumoto says, "... two swords serve [your] lord better than one..."

We need to get together and play L5R.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:03 pm

MORE BLADES == MORE DAMAGE!

Anyone willing to admit to watching Advent Children? Yeah, remember the Sephiroth clone who has the sword with two blades in it? Yeah.

It's terrible, wouldn't be good in real life. And worse, it didn't actually look any cooler because the blades were close together so, when moving quickly (like, say, fighting with it, as one might do with a sword), you couldn't even tell.

But to make matters worse, the WotC boards ragged on it autistically. Seriously, some were frothing at the mouth over the impracticality. Fortunately, someone decided to insert the katana copypasta.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:28 pm

Spaghetti Western wrote:Roy,

"
So if you don't want shields made of Fail, make them have a flat evade rate like displacement and boost saves"

I like this idea. It would especially seem to give more options for better shields beyond making them +x

So to elaborate on my earlier point...

In FF2 you got like 50% evade or more just off shield training, not counting the shield itself and not counting other sources of evade. Of course nearly everything lowered evade, because it added weight but regardless the point is shields give a lot of evade.

In FF6 they give block and mblock, allowing you an x% chance to avoid most physical and magical attacks. They were also the primary source of this, and it was possible with enough other gear to be flat out immune to blockable attacks.

In Diablo shields gave up to 100% blocking based on dexterity, but there is a block delay which prevents you from blocking again for a short time. They were also a primary source of elemental resistance and could account for over half your total amount.

In Diablo 2 shields were not as good, capping out at 75% block depending on dexterity and the individual shield but the block delay was shorter and they still were a primary source of elemental resistance even though they only accounted for around 40% of the total this time.

In Titan Quest you could get 100% blocking if you took the defense tree as one of your two classes, otherwise you just got up to 60-70% or so, and there was also a block delay which again, the defense tree does better than anyone else. Shields didn't block all damage from an attack, but they did have a large flat rate blocking which effectively reduced the damage by that much before considering your defense and such. Again, primary source for elemental resistances.

The take home point for all this is that in games where shields are worth using they not only gave evade and defense against magic, but they gave a lot of it.

So let's see...

Buckler: 10%.
Light shield: 20% (this is so there is actually a point to their existence).
Heavy shield: 30%.
Tower shield: 50% (again, they need a point to their existence).

This only applies against physical attacks.

Then the enhancement bonus of the shield adds to:

Physical evade.
Spell evade (for rays and other attack roll based effects).
Saving throws vs blockable attacks*.

At the rate of 5% per bonus. So a +5 heavy shield is giving 55% evade, 25% evade vs rays and such, and +5 saves vs blockable attacks.

This seems really high, but it isn't. You lose a LOT by using a shield, easily half your total offense or more. Also, you lose reach, which puts you at a disadvantage against the things you are expected to fight. The least they could do in return is give you a limited, always on displacement effect.

The reasons why shields are inconsequential in normal D&D is first that a couple points of AC won't even make a difference often past level 5 and a few levels later it stops mattering entirely and second, the huge offensive loss when you are already struggling to get relevant offenses means enemies just ignore you, so even if your defense did matter in the sense that it stopped things from hitting you, they have no reason to try because you are a non threat.

This fixes the first problem by giving them real defenses, just as casters get displacement, mirror image, etc. It doesn't do anything about the second, you'd probably need some sort of shield style feats for that to not just make it a lesser form of turtle fail.

So let's see...

If you changed Shield Ward so that it added your base shield evade to rays as well it would probably be fine. Maybe also give it Evasion at higher levels with a shield, reflecting the knight who completely blocks dragon breath or whatever.

Some sort of move and counter ability if an enemy attacks an ally other than them, where they take the attack in that ally's place and then get a free hit on the enemy?

Some sort of ability that boosts the save bonus?

* - Something like a fireball or dragon breath can be feasibly blocked. A targeted spell like Finger of Death could be feasibly blocked if you get past that whole 'can cast through the shield' thing and picture it as him covering his body to try to prevent the spell from hitting him. A lightning bolt can be feasibly blocked (though I hope your shield isn't metal). A gas attack is not going to be blocked. If the bartender slips something into your food, you can't block it. If you're running and get tired, you can't block the fatigue.

Korwin · Post by **Korwin** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:45 pm

Another point, if you want Chars to have shield in their hand, you must not allow animated shields.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:54 pm

Korwin wrote:Another point, if you want Chars to have shield in their hand, you must not allow animated shields.

While true, the first thing to do is make shields worth a damn. Otherwise all you've accomplished is getting them ignored entirely. And no game needs more useless content. Full stop.

Once they are worthwhile, you can ensure that you can't always just pop one on.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:25 pm

I am going to put my vote in for the dodge % thing. I will add this though... In using it in this fashion you make way for wizards to conjure up another level of protection, you'd probably have to account for shield wear and tear, and you'd have to add in abilities that actually make shield users better and/or improve/change some of the existing feats to accommodate for the new rules. Also I do think that the shield's AC bonus should be added to touch AC but if you get the miss chance then you wouldn't need to worry about it.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:31 pm

MGuy wrote:you'd probably have to account for shield wear and tear,

No, fuck you and fuck that.

Shield wear and tear just means Fighters Cannot Have Nice Things, and shields are still a liability except more so, as losing gear is a fate worse than death (much less damage).

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:49 pm

I'd assume any magical shield wouldn't have to worry about it (or could just be made immune to mentioned wear and tear) but I don't want PCs piecing together planks of wood and calling it an effective shield.

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:52 pm

MGuy wrote:I'd assume any magical shield wouldn't have to worry about it (or could just be made immune to mentioned wear and tear) but I don't want PCs piecing together planks of wood and calling it an effective shield.

wait why would they do this? Do they bandage pieces of metal to themselves and call it armor? Do they pick up a piece of wood and think it's the same as a bastard sword?

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:54 pm

I'd laugh if it hadn't actually happened on several occasions in exactly that manner.

-edit for after thought: "If I use my sword side ways it should deal nonlethal damage right? Can I treat the broken leg of the chair as a crossbow bolt?If i'm at a much higher level than an npc can I spit on them to kill them?

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:11 pm

That first one actually isn't unreasonable. Hitting with the flat of the blade to subdue rather than kill actually makes sense, and is likely what the -4 for nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon is meant to represent. But the rest of that? What the fuck.

Thymos · Post by **Thymos** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:26 pm

There's a basic problem for shields in a team based game.

If your shield is a trade of offense for defense (which it is, we're trading two handed weapons for defense here), then you need to make sure that your defense will matter.

Since your offensive output is down and your defense is better, Monsters should be more inclined to ignore you, kill the squishies, then focus on you once it's 1v1 and thus much easier to kill you.

The only time shields are going to be a good idea is when, as in MMO's, you can draw aggro and be the dedicated tank. Or your playing games like Tactics ogre and movement actually matters so it's not easy to get to the squishies.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:35 pm

Well, the defend others ability does something. Just don't ruin it by restricting it to 'adjacent', as allies will not be adjacent to you if you are in melee. They will be on the opposite side to flank your opponent or well away from you so as to not be in melee range. And by 'does something' I mean 'enemies attack you anyways, and you get free hits on them so they're better off just attacking you directly'.

About the only other option is MMO taunting, so let's go with the move and protect.

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 4:41 pm

Roy wrote:Well, the defend others ability does something. Just don't ruin it by restricting it to 'adjacent', as allies will not be adjacent to you if you are in melee. They will be on the opposite side to flank your opponent or well away from you so as to not be in melee range. And by 'does something' I mean 'enemies attack you anyways, and you get free hits on them so they're better off just attacking you directly'.

About the only other option is MMO taunting, so let's go with the move and protect.

So is it as easy as just having a combat feat that allows a fighter/warrior type to be able to take up to it's full movement at any time during a round in order to intercept a moving enemy?

I'm not sure how it would be worded but essentially if enemy A moves toward an ally X, the fighter can immediately take up to it's full movement to intercept the enemy.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 5:04 pm

Shield bash abilities could put up the damage to compare with TWFers. If we're talking about team play you could have the shield guys protect the casters from direct assaults with feats that allow position switching applying they're miss chance to any one within reach (so if they are large they can protect 10ft away) and other things along those lines.

violence in the media · Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:03 pm

MGuy wrote:Shield bash abilities could put up the damage to compare with TWFers. If we're talking about team play you could have the shield guys protect the casters from direct assaults with feats that allow position switching applying they're miss chance to any one within reach (so if they are large they can protect 10ft away) and other things along those lines.

If shield bash damage is comparable to TWF AND the shield guys get enhanced defensive capabilities, then why would anyone choose to TWF?

Spaghetti Western · Post by **Spaghetti Western** » Mon Aug 10, 2009 6:08 pm

violence in the media wrote:
MGuy wrote:Shield bash abilities could put up the damage to compare with TWFers. If we're talking about team play you could have the shield guys protect the casters from direct assaults with feats that allow position switching applying they're miss chance to any one within reach (so if they are large they can protect 10ft away) and other things along those lines.
If shield bash damage is comparable to TWF AND the shield guys get enhanced defensive capabilities, then why would anyone choose to TWF?

plus, and maybe this just me but I've always that shield bashing was rather gay.