Author Topic: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix  (Read 3962 times)

ClaimingLight

  • New to the Mists
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #100 on: April 15, 2017, 04:54:10 PM »
Ok, allow me to establish some premise points before I make my point:

• 5 skill points can buy you +1 to all spell saves (with Spellcraft) or +1 to AC (with Tumble).
• 1 Feat can buy you +1 to all saves (With Luck of Heroes) or +1 to AC (with Dodge).
• For these points of parity and other unstated ones, we could say that:
     • 1 Feat = 5 Skill Points = 1 AC = 1 to All Saves
     • Let's create a fake currency called Character Points (cp) as a stand in for that equality.

Now some intermediary points:
• A common large shield offers 2 AC, (2 character points) but requires a feat to utilize (-1 cp).
• 10 Points in Parry offer 2 AC (2 cp) but require ten skill points to utilize (-2 cp).
• 10 Points in Tumble offers 2 AC (2 cp), but requires ten skill points to utilize (-2cp).

On the surface, this seems to make Parry and Tumble less attractive options than a shield. But, of course, you know there's more to it than that. An investment in Parry will offer you:

• 10ish fewer units of pack weight utilized than with a large shield.
• No armor check penalty.
• No spell casting failure.
• An empty off hand, employable for other weapons or devices (destroying the D&D balancing act for handedness, around which offense vs. defense and class balance is
 oriented).
• Parry isn't dropped on death.
• Parry has no money cost and doesn't need to be found.

Can we really say that -all- of these bonuses combined are equivalent to one CP? If you had an available feat in the game that offered all of those advantages (-10% spellcastng failure, +2 to ACP skills, +1 Hands, +10 pack limit), wouldn't it become absolutely mandatory for everyone to take? And is that not the essential definition of an overpowered character option?

But here, we're using a Large Shield for a comparison. Consideration of a common Tower Shield deeply exacerbates the trouble. And, at higher levels, the notion that you may eventually surpass the primary benefits of the shield, continue to reap the fringe benefits, and actually win-out on a cost-to-benefit scale with your CP expenditures is increidbly difficult to justify.

The conclusion here is obvious, I think. Either parry needs a dramatic change or shields do.



*************************
Now, as to what the change should be? I may have an idea or two. But I don't want to poison the conclusion. Thoughts?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 05:41:12 PM by ClaimingLight »

Mereyn

  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Hunchbacked Hemophiliac Hunter
    • YouTube Channel
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #101 on: April 15, 2017, 05:19:20 PM »
Although I find your presentation to be quite biased into the path of "one needs to have either, but always the best",
I do agree in the point that shields should get some feats that offer utility at least. If possible, that is.
But in actuality, if we have to resort to needlessly complex explanations to say that one is far superior or inferior to another
way to build your character, I somehow can't shake the feeling that the problem lies much deeper -- in the fact that it appears
we are forced to take the better option (or else our characters end in the gutter). I share that thought, but have been, as it stands, proven wrong.
People are very successful at utilizing what they're given, considering that this server provides difficulty in strange ways.

ClaimingLight

  • New to the Mists
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #102 on: April 15, 2017, 05:28:25 PM »
Sure, there's always room for characters who choose to build sub-optimally (no irony intended. :)  )

But when discussing matters of game balance (in the Gameplay Balance subforum, no less), sub-optimal choices don't require accounting. I could, for instance, choose to play as a Fighter who refuses to wear armor. But that sort of character doesn't require accounting in a balancing sense.

Further, I thought I'd add that balancing discussions are always going to be complicated by analytics. You can't get anywhere past "IMO" stuff otherwise.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 06:29:49 PM by ClaimingLight »

BahamutZ3RO

  • Master of Many Alts
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 2213
  • Do you think this is a #&^&ing game, domn?
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #103 on: April 15, 2017, 05:40:59 PM »
Most of my attempts at one or the other have shown that parry and shields are both pretty much equally good. A person in full plate doesn't have to expend the feats or the dexterity to make the build work and they have a higher ab and damage. Also, Magic Vestment applies a separate AC buff to armor and shields, giving you a potential of +7 AC on a tower shield alone.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 05:43:43 PM by BahamutZ3RO »
Fane Silivasi / Edwin Aubert / Marianne Sondheim / Nelu Stoichita
Ata Ubaid / Bruhm Blackwrought / Craven



Night of Reod

  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #104 on: April 15, 2017, 05:46:34 PM »
Ok, allow me to establish some premise points before I make my point:

• 5 skill points can buy you +1 to all spell saves (with Spellcraft) or +1 to AC (with Tumble).
• 1 Feat can buy you +1 to all saves (With Luck of Heroes) or +1 to AC (with Dodge).
• For these points of parity and other unstated ones, we could say that:
     • 1 Feat = 5 Skill Points = 1 AC = 1 to All Saves
     • Let's create a fake currency called Character Points (cp) as a stand in for that equality.

Now some intermediary points:
• A common large shield offers 2 AC, (2 character points) but requires a feat to utilize (-1 cp).
• 10 Points in Parry offer 2 AC (2 cp) but require ten skill points to utilize (-2 cp).
• 10 Points in Tumble offers 2 AC (2 cp), but requires ten skill points to utilize (-2cp).

On the surface, this seems to make Parry and Tumble less attractive options than a shield. But, of course, you know there's more to it than that. An investment in Parry will offer you:

• 10ish fewer units of pack weight utilized than with a large shield.
• No armor check penalty.
• No spell casting failure.
• An empty off hand, employable for other weapons or devices (destroying the D&D balancing act for handedness, around which offense vs. defense and class balance is
 oriented).

Can we really say that -all- of these bonuses combined are equivalent to one CP? If you had an available feat in the game that offered all of those advantages (-10% spellcastng failure, +2 to ACP skills, +1 Hands, +10 pack limit), wouldn't it become absolutely mandatory for everyone to take? And is that not the essential definition of an overpowered character option?

But here, we're using a Large Shield for a comparison. Consideration of a common Tower Shield deeply exacerbates the trouble. And, at higher levels, the notion that you may eventually surpass the primary benefits of the shield, continue to reap the fringe benefits, and actually win-out on a cost-to-benefit scale with your CP expenditures is incredibly difficult to justify.

The conclusion here is obvious, I think. Either parry needs a dramatic change or shields do.

 First of all, you are representing the value of a "cp" wrong. The Dodge feat has a requirement of 13 dexterity which makes it less attractive than you make it out to be, and it is not equivalent to +1 AC unless you are fighting against a single opponent, as it is only effective against a single opponent. If you are fighting a group, then it is effective only against your primary target, which is the least dangerous opponent as the others get +2 to ab from flanking unless you are a Dwarven Defender. As for the Luck of Heroes feat, it is only available at level one and once for every character, which makes it weaker than you make it out to be. Also, spellcraft and tumble are not class skills for every class but parry is.

 As for the comparison, you need to have 15-20 points in parry to get the equivalent of a crafted large shield which means at least 3 cp following your reasoning. And even then, spell failure doesn't have the same value for everyone, and neither does ACP skills, and I can't think of any offhand items that can make a big difference off the top of my hand, and even those that can be useful such as servant candle and lamp of revealing have alternatives that are more convenient to use such as an amulet or dust of revealing. Furthermore, ACP applies to the parry skill so unless you are using light armor, which requires you to have high dex to be effective, you need feats to counteract the ACP penalty from your armor, usually two of  them, which amounts to at least 4 cp difference. If we also consider that most classes that would use a shield get the shield feat for free, I believe we are looking at a 5 cp difference between a crafted large shield and parry and you need to have levels under your belt to get 15 parry while you can have a shield starting from level 2 and apply varnishes to it starting from level 2.

 And again, this cp system in this example is not even taking tower shields, varnishes, spells and enchanting nor the fact that you need levels to get the AC from parry into account, which does matter when it comes to the overall balance of the game, but more importantly, the values you base your "cp" concept and the argument that follows are lacking. I would be interested to see this "cp" concept corrected for the points above, and likely others that I am missing, as a medium to discuss AC related matters however, if it is even feasible to do so.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 05:50:02 PM by Night of Reod »

ClaimingLight

  • New to the Mists
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #105 on: April 15, 2017, 06:19:36 PM »
Hi! Thanks for taking the time. I will now proceed to gut your arguments. :D

The Dodge feat has a requirement of 13 dexterity which makes it less attractive than you make it out to be....
and it is not equivalent to +1 AC unless you are fighting against a single opponent....
As for the Luck of Heroes feat, it is only available at level one and once for every character...

I avoided these nitpicks in the favor of someone with a counter-argument. In truth, it only serves to show that Dodge may, in fact, be worth less than 1 CP. Embracing the points you mention necessitates our acceptance that the other options are even more economically superior.

Also, spellcraft and tumble are not class skills for every class but parry is.

My takeaway here is that you feel that Parry should be a class skill for only some classes. Like Fighters. If that wasn't your intention, perhaps it's still a reasonable place to start fixing this problem?

You need to have 15-20 points in parry to get the equivalent of a crafted large shield which means at least 3 cp following your reasoning.

When considered against the perpetual need for rogues to invest in Open Lock, Disable Trap, Search, Tumble, and others to remain relevant as they increase, I fail to see your point. The AC bonuses they'd acquired up to their present level don't go away- they just allow for continual reinforcement. Just as with any developing character's skills and abilities. My main character has something like ten ranks in Open Lock. By PnP standards I could get a job as a King's vault-smith. But a common bandit's chest in Barovia may still cause me problems. That's just the nature of the beast. I still receive the benefit of my investments-- but more are required if I want them to remain relevant.

And even then, spell failure doesn't have the same value for everyone, and neither does ACP skills.
The largest benefactors of this balancing issue aren't those who might otherwise have used a shield. It's those who wouldn't have. A wizard and a rogue should not have Shield ACs that are equivalent to a Fighters. Or, if you contend that they should, then we should not have fighters. This feels akin to saying that Wizards should be allowed to have heavy armor because not all characters are concerned about spell failure chances.

Furthermore, ACP applies to the parry skill so unless you are using light armor, which requires you to have high dex to be effective, you need feats to counteract the ACP penalty from your armor, usually two of  them, which amounts to at least 4 cp difference.
I do not agree that these feats are necessary. A wizard, rogue or monk wouldn't have need of them. But if you're specifically talking about a heavy armor wielding Fighter, than this strikes me as a good thing. Further, "4" is an invented number. A feat is worth 1 CP. Two feats are therefore worth 2.
Added: But, if you're including the cost of the Parry skill itself, recall that we've already established its value against the cost of the shield's benefit. This argument would then hazard double jeopardy on the CP costs, if you follow me.

If we also consider that most classes that would use a shield get the shield feat for free,
It isn't free- it costs a class. This is something like saying that most people who fight unarmed get the unarmed combat feat for free.

As for the comparison, you need to have 15-20 points in parry to get the equivalent of a crafted large shield which means at least 3 cp following your reasoning.
This is a false equivalency that fails to account for the burgeoning list of advantages that Parry offers detailed above.

And again, this cp system in this example is not even taking tower shields,
To your advantage. A -10 ACP and 50lbs are even harder problems to overcome.

varnishes, spells and enchanting
To your advantage. These require other forms of investment, whether through money, class levels or XP, still cost weight, still don't allow for increased offense and... still violate all of my opening premises.

nor the fact that you need levels to get the AC from parry into account,
The same can be said for the aforementioned varnishes, spells, enchanting and indeed the quality level of shields themselves. AC tends to increase as you gain levels. There's nothing unusual about that.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 06:37:49 PM by ClaimingLight »

Legion XXI

  • Community Council
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1204
  • Nemo me impune lacessit
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #106 on: April 15, 2017, 06:37:27 PM »
I think shields and parry are pretty fine as is.  Parry is better, but it requires investment in skill (and feats too if you're using a 2 handed weapon).  Also there's a ton of other things to consider when choosing between the two- they're not all equally viable across every build and situation so just comparing hard numbers is only half the argument.  Not to mention certain shields that give things like saves bonuses, resistance to elemental damages, or other situational bonuses that parry can't give.

I'm not really following the technical debate at this point, it seems to be getting pretty out there and people are assuming a lot of things about the situation and opposing arguments.  Also kind of 'dressing things up' to look more in their favor than they are.  Sort of defeats the point of all that work in my eyes.

Though I feel like the fact that I see people walking around with shields ALL the time sort of highlights that Parry isn't the only possible option that far outshines everything else with minimal drawbacks.

ClaimingLight

  • New to the Mists
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #107 on: April 15, 2017, 06:39:52 PM »
I'm not really following the technical debate at this point,

Oh. Oh, ok.   :lol:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and observations. But not to their own facts. It's my intention to deal in the latter as best we can.

But to your observation that shields are fairly common: sure, they're used at times. I happen to use one, myself. But that's where a good deal of my passion comes from. Were I not such an enemy of character rerolling, I'd be sorely tempted to go the other way. The advantages are just too amazing to ignore.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 06:44:24 PM by ClaimingLight »

Deadbeat

  • Red Vardo Traders Front
  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • Deadbeat Stuff
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #108 on: April 15, 2017, 06:54:58 PM »
I'm not really following the technical debate at this point,

Oh. Oh, ok.   :lol:


Chaos

  • Community Council
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #109 on: April 15, 2017, 07:00:06 PM »
There's a way to have a conversation about this without being snarky and rude to one another. Let's stay excellent to one another!
"In all chaos there is a cosmos, in all disorder a secret order."

Night of Reod

  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 171
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #110 on: April 15, 2017, 07:05:26 PM »
Hi! Thanks for taking the time. I will now proceed to gut your arguments. :D

The Dodge feat has a requirement of 13 dexterity which makes it less attractive than you make it out to be....
and it is not equivalent to +1 AC unless you are fighting against a single opponent....
As for the Luck of Heroes feat, it is only available at level one and once for every character...

I avoided these nitpicks in the favor of someone with a counter-argument. In truth, it only serves to show that Dodge may, in fact, be worth less than 1 CP. Embracing the points you mention necessitates our acceptance that the other options are even more economically superior.

Also, spellcraft and tumble are not class skills for every class but parry is.

My takeaway here is that you feel that Parry should be a class skill for only some classes. Like Fighters. If that wasn't your intention, perhaps it's still a reasonable place to start fixing this problem?

You need to have 15-20 points in parry to get the equivalent of a crafted large shield which means at least 3 cp following your reasoning.

When considered against the perpetual need for rogues to invest in Open Lock, Disable Trap, Search, Tumble, and others to remain relevant as they increase, I fail to see your point. The AC bonuses they'd acquired up to their present level don't go away- they just allow for continual reinforcement. Just as with any developing character's skills and abilities. My main character has something like ten ranks in Open Lock. By PnP standards I could get a job as a King's vault-smith. But a common bandit's chest in Barovia may still cause me problems. That's just the nature of the beast. I still receive the benefit of my investments-- but more are required if I want them to remain relevant.

And even then, spell failure doesn't have the same value for everyone, and neither does ACP skills.
The largest benefactors of this balancing issue aren't those who might otherwise have used a shield. It's those who wouldn't have. A wizard and a rogue should not have Shield ACs that are equivalent to a Fighters. Or, if you contend that they should, then we should not have fighters. This feels akin to saying that Wizards should be allowed to have heavy armor because not all characters are concerned about spell failure chances.

Furthermore, ACP applies to the parry skill so unless you are using light armor, which requires you to have high dex to be effective, you need feats to counteract the ACP penalty from your armor, usually two of  them, which amounts to at least 4 cp difference.
I do not agree that these feats are necessary. A wizard, rogue or monk wouldn't have need of them. But if you're specifically talking about a heavy armor wielding Fighter, than this strikes me as a good thing. Further, "4" is an invented number. A feat is worth 1 CP. Two feats are therefore worth 2.
Added: But, if you're including the cost of the Parry skill itself, recall that we've already established its value against the cost of the shield's benefit. This argument would then hazard double jeopardy on the CP costs, if you follow me.

If we also consider that most classes that would use a shield get the shield feat for free,
It isn't free- it costs a class. This is something like saying that most people who fight unarmed get the unarmed combat feat for free.

As for the comparison, you need to have 15-20 points in parry to get the equivalent of a crafted large shield which means at least 3 cp following your reasoning.
This is a false equivalency that fails to account for the burgeoning list of advantages that Parry offers detailed above.

And again, this cp system in this example is not even taking tower shields,
To your advantage. A -10 ACP and 50lbs are even harder problems to overcome.

varnishes, spells and enchanting
To your advantage. These require other forms of investment, whether through money, class levels or XP, still cost weight, still don't allow for increased offense and... still violate all of my opening premises.

nor the fact that you need levels to get the AC from parry into account,
The same can be said for the aforementioned varnishes, spells, enchanting and indeed the quality level of shields themselves. AC tends to increase as you gain levels. There's nothing unusual about that.



Alright...:

"When considered against the perpetual need for rogues to invest in Open Lock, Disable Trap, Search, Tumble, and others to remain relevant as they increase, I fail to see your point. The AC bonuses they'd acquired up to their present level don't go away- they just allow for continual reinforcement. Just as with any developing character's skills and abilities. My main character has something like ten ranks in Open Lock. By PnP standards I could get a job as a King's vault-smith. But a common bandit's chest in Barovia may still cause me problems. That's just the nature of the beast. I still receive the benefit of my investments-- but more are required if I want them to remain relevant."
 
I don't see what the argument made here is. My argument in the quote above this one is that a steel reinforced thick chitin shield has +3 shield AC, +4 shield AC against slashing and bludgeoning. Which means you need 15 points in parry to break even against just bludgeoning AC, and that is 15 points you are not investing in something else.

"I avoided these nitpicks in the favor of someone with a counter-argument. In truth, it only serves to show that Dodge may, in fact, be worth less than 1 CP. Embracing the points you mention necessitates our acceptance that the other options are even more economically superior."
 
It means that you are basing the value on your cp on wrong or missing values, which undermines the entire argument regardless of what direction it does it in. You don't get to set a "currency" and then have it be based on multiple nonequivalent things.

"My takeaway here is that you feel that Parry should be a class skill for only some classes. Like Fighters. If that wasn't your intention, perhaps it's still a reasonable place to start fixing this problem?"
 That was not my point at all. My point was that you don't get to set a currency and then have it be based on multiple different, nonequivalent things.

"The largest benefactors of this balancing issue aren't those who might otherwise have used a shield. It's those who wouldn't have. A wizard and a rogue should not have Shield ACs that are equivalent to a Fighters. Or, if you contend that they should, then we should not have fighters."
 
I fail to see your point unless you are arguing that parry changes make these classes overly strong. These classes already suffer from different problems regarding their performance in melee combat and the shield AC from parry helps them keep relevant in the increased difficulty of the server more so than pushing them over the edge. Also, shield AC is not the only thing that makes fighters, you are disregarding full BAB progression, 1d10 hit die and number of attacks per round. I think those are much more important defining qualities between rogues, wizards and fighters than their shield AC.

 "I do not agree that these feats are necessary. A wizard, rogue or monk wouldn't have need of them. But if you're specifically talking about a heavy armor wielding Fighter, than this strikes me as a good thing. Further, "4" is an invented number. A feat is worth 1 CP. Two feats are therefore worth 2."

 What you are disregarding is that those classes then need to invest in a higher dexterity stat, or they will have less AC no matter their equivalent shield AC. If you are not assuming that they all have the same dex score, then you need to include the difference in their dexterity scores and what they lose to have that higher dexterity in your calculation. As for the "cp"s, if you read the entire paragraph, it goes like this: 15 parry= 3 cp, 2 feats for parry feats= 2 cp, 1 feat for taking shield proficiency= 1 cp. Furthermore, 3+2-1=4, hence 4 cp. I fail to see how it is invented.

 Further expanding on this, if we assume a dexterity of 12, then you are suffering a penalty of 6 AC if you wear leather armor instead of a full plate. And even then, you wouldn't be reaching 25 parry without either a cat's grace spell, a feat or gloves of swordplay. Assuming you have 25 parry, you are still 1 AC down from just straight full plate without a shield. You of course need a higher dexterity stat to be able to effectively use lighter armor, and that means you have to sacrifice strength, constitution or intelligence, which you have to include when evaluating the parry skill and the shield AC you get from it.

"It isn't free- it costs a class. This is something like saying that most people who fight unarmed get the unarmed combat feat for free."
 
 People who fight unarmed do get unarmed combat feat for free, because all classes have proficiency to fight unarmed. Even then I am assuming you are talking about Improved Unarmed Fighting feat, which monks do get for free, and even then that feat is only necessary if you are fighting without wearing any gloves at all, and even then rangers and druids get it for free via Ram's Might spell. Furthermore, all classes get proficiency with some weapons. And all classes that are intended to be tanking in the frontline do get the shield feat for free, I can think of no situation you would take a class purely because of the shield proficiency, and multiclassing always has penalties of its own as well.

"This is a false equivalency that fails to account for the burgeoning list of advantages that Parry offers detailed above."

 How is this a false equivalency? A steel reinforced thick chitin shield, which tends to cost 500 gp at most, has +3 Shield AC, +4 Shield AC against slashing and bludgeoning. That is at least 15 parry to break even, and 20 parry to break even against ~80% of the damage present in the game at the least.

"To your advantage. A -10 ACP and 50lbs are even harder problems to overcome."

 And a tower shield gets an extra point of AC, which can potentially amount up to overall 50% physical damage reduction, not to mention ASP and ACP are pretty much meaningless to a fair number of people that care about their shield AC.

"The same can be said for the aforementioned varnishes, spells, enchanting and indeed the quality level of shields themselves. AC tends to increase as you gain levels. There's nothing unusual about that."

 Varnishes you can acquire as early as level 2 in great numbers, an hour spent picking herbs in spring can easily get you dozens, and spells and enchanting lets you have a higher shield AC than parry alone can provide, and usually quicker than parry provides normal values if no feats are involved, hence why the distinction matters.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2017, 07:10:34 PM by Night of Reod »

FlyingLotus

  • Community Council
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 1262
  • *smirks*
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #111 on: April 15, 2017, 09:59:22 PM »
I still don't think shields should be made stronger. I've played both types of characters extensively and they both felt fine balance wise in their niche. In fact, I would not enjoy having things added for shields. It would increase the number of feats/skills I felt obligated to take, taking away from more interesting ones and just nope. Shields are so much better than people are making them out to be it's a little ridiculous.

Anyway, the poll? Should probably change it to a simple yes and no instead of adding comment after that doesn't necessarily reflect someone's opinion on the matter even though they have to pick either of those.
Eilithar Cael'aera | Eowaril | Kiiren Josivir | Rowan Tallstag | Baelavain Auvreaneldth | Alister Sigethurn | Luca Cardei

Niffie

  • New to the Mists
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #112 on: April 16, 2017, 07:08:54 AM »
I just don't see how it's reasonable for someone using a two-handed weapon (supposedly to do more damage, akin to a fighting glass cannon) being able to defend himself as well as someone in full plate with a shield and a one-handed weapon. It doesn't make sense realistically, nor in a game setting. I wouldn't mind having to spent points in skills or feats to accomplish some form of shield buff. And then we can talk about the benefits of buffs and so forth, but I still think a man with a shield, would be generally better defended(higher AC) than that of a man with two weapons or a large two-hander. With and without buffs.

More damage = less defense. That's how it's been balanced in all games through out the history of games.

Iridni Ren

  • Priestess of Pelor
  • The Wayfarer Kinship
  • Dark Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
  • When all other lights go out
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #113 on: April 16, 2017, 09:02:04 AM »
Quote
But to your observation that shields are fairly common: sure, they're used at times. I happen to use one, myself. But that's where a good deal of my passion comes from. Were I not such an enemy of character rerolling, I'd be sorely tempted to go the other way.

I'm by no means the mightiest power builder on the server. I'm unlikely to go into the statistical analysis of some of these posts and make all these comparisons weighting various advantages. Other people do that, and I can look at their conclusions if I want to rather than doing the work myself :P

Regardless, what forces the decision it seems to me is a PC's dexterity. I don't know but I bet if you could look at which PCs use shields almost all of them have low dex. The option to "go the other way" isn't available.

Ambidexterity requires (basic) dexterity of 15+. I can't imagine having a dex of 16 or more and doing a shield build.

My windows cracked, but they can be replaced.
Your arm will tire throwing stones my way.

Ternce

  • Vallaki Guards
  • Undead Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
  • Ye be naught but a worm.
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #114 on: October 13, 2017, 01:04:16 AM »
If you're brainstorming shield related feats, I'd want something offensive, as shields are not only for defense, but also for making a push, or agitating someone mid swing.

Like take Dirty Fighting, rename it to Shield Bash, and let it silence for 1d4 rounds.

Syl

  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 2449
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #115 on: October 13, 2017, 07:53:10 AM »
My tiefling. Fighter Sirius, has I neither a 16 or 18 dex and uses a large shield.

A: because it gives balance and allows him to be versatile.

B: fits him rp wise

A high dex doesn't mean you can't use a shield. You could use a shield and finesse weapon. It shouldn't be about the "build" this is mainly a rp sever at first. But you know.. to each there own, I ell agree some offensive shield feats would be awesome

Monica O'Sullivan: Master explorer
Tsubaki Yamamoto: Shadow Thief
Roesor Cryso: A slave for the Masters.
Sokol: An Unlikely Hero

HopeIsTheCarrot

  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Gully Dwarf Admirer
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #116 on: October 13, 2017, 02:26:53 PM »
I feel that the system is fine as is. The shield options available on this server are both plentiful and powerful enough to offer an incentive for characters that have rp based reasons to use a shield to continue to do so. Similarly, i feel that the current parry system offers the same opportunity to characters who are better off (from an rp point of view) without a shield. Is the system perfectly balanced? Maybe not, but I feel it's close enough that it really should not be hard for players to stick to the choice that makes the most sense for each of their individual characters.
With that in mind, I think some aggressive/attack based shield feats would be great and could open the doorway for new rp opportunities as well.
"Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."
-Raistlin Majere

ethinos

  • Keepin' it hardcore since 2nd edition AD&D
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • When in doubt, fireball.
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #117 on: October 13, 2017, 03:11:49 PM »
If you're brainstorming shield related feats, I'd want something offensive, as shields are not only for defense, but also for making a push, or agitating someone mid swing.

Like take Dirty Fighting, rename it to Shield Bash, and let it silence for 1d4 rounds.

I'd rather see a chance to stun.
Torgan Ironshield: Battlerager and smith
Wirth Darmington II: Roguish noble
Kurgh: A simple herdsman

HopeIsTheCarrot

  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Gully Dwarf Admirer
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #118 on: October 13, 2017, 03:16:56 PM »
If you're brainstorming shield related feats, I'd want something offensive, as shields are not only for defense, but also for making a push, or agitating someone mid swing.

Like take Dirty Fighting, rename it to Shield Bash, and let it silence for 1d4 rounds.

I'd rather see a chance to stun.


I would also agree that stun would make for a better fit than silence.
"Hope is the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it."
-Raistlin Majere

WingsOfStardust

  • Undead Master
  • ****
  • Posts: 299
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #119 on: October 13, 2017, 03:38:30 PM »
Goodness, let this madness of a thead die already and make a new one to discuss shield feats.
"What is a day, without  a blessed night?
And what is peace, without a blessed fight?"

EO

  • Dungeon Master/Developer
  • Dark Power
  • ******
  • Posts: 13400
  • The one and only, the one everyone wants to be!
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #120 on: October 13, 2017, 05:14:19 PM »
We can’t add shield attack feats due to NwN’s engine.

SpaceHam

  • The Cult of the Morninglord
  • Undead Slayer
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Shields too weak compared to Parry, suggested fix
« Reply #121 on: October 30, 2017, 10:34:33 PM »
Can't follow your argument since inventing CP has thrown me off, ClaimingLight. KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!

 It's a simple concept, shield feats for goodness to increase the AC yield perhaps. Or add a slight Damage Reduction? who knows, possibilities.
Characters:

Tristyn Ondar: Dweomerkeeper of Mystra
Abethaar Tiradiron: Discorporate
Kaliara Verafall: Faithful of the Morninglord
Kythaela Orifiel: Degannwyian protectress and ranger
Qyral Sundervoss: Star-elf Sorcerer Supreme