I'd actually go one step further with this one and make it a fighter only feat. It would certainly give fighters a bit more of an interesting flavour, for certain. As paladins and clerics can get extremely high ac thanks to the power of divine shield not to mention spells, they more than make up for the deficit. And barbarians get the frankly fantastic barbarian feats. Rangers have their spell selections such as barkskin, and two weapon fighting feats. I'm probably missing a combat class in there - but this would be a really great one for fighters, to make them just that bit tankier.
Admittedly a lot of these deficits can be overcome by having some buffing help. For example, an enchanted shield makes up a huge difference in AC that the parry bonus won't reach. And a cleric can buff a combat classes shield 'and' armour but that requires them as well.
Overall though, I kinda like the idea. If it was for fighters I would like it even more. Show the fighters some love!
I don't think that it is a good idea to have such feats added into the game. It is true that you can get a similar AC to that of using a shield with two handed weapons and dual wielding, but you are forgetting that it often requires an investment of at least two feats and skill points. Using a shield enables you to spend your feats and skill points elsewhere, which can be quite valuable, and an enchanted shield ends up having one more AC than a two handed weapon does, and with a level 16 cleric it can potentially have two more AC.
What I would love to see, however, is a way to make the large and small shields relevant. Perhaps a feat could be added to let you use your parry skill alongside of a shield up to a cap? That way, players can trade a feat and some skill points for the benefit of lower weight or simply flavour, such as a rapier and buckler duelist, without losing AC.
Another suggestion would be to add utility feats for shield users, such as bonuses to discipline or other combat relevant skills while using a shield, or add a shield bash feat which gives a bonus to knockdown attacks much like improved knockdown does.
I don't think that it is a good idea to have such feats added into the game. It is true that you can get a similar AC to that of using a shield with two handed weapons and dual wielding, but you are forgetting that it often requires an investment of at least two feats and skill points. Using a shield enables you to spend your feats and skill points elsewhere, which can be quite valuable, and an enchanted shield ends up having one more AC than a two handed weapon does, and with a level 16 cleric it can potentially have two more AC.
What I would love to see, however, is a way to make the large and small shields relevant. Perhaps a feat could be added to let you use your parry skill alongside of a shield up to a cap? That way, players can trade a feat and some skill points for the benefit of lower weight or simply flavour, such as a rapier and buckler duelist, without losing AC.
Edit: Also, do keep in mind that there are some shields with unique bonuses as well, and enchanted shields also provide a bonus to saves and discipline and concentration skills on top of their AC.
Another suggestion would be to add utility feats for shield users, such as bonuses to discipline or other combat relevant skills while using a shield, or add a shield bash feat which gives a bonus to knockdown attacks much like improved knockdown does.
What I'm suggesting also requires the investment of two feats, and you can't get a similar bonus to shields with Parry, you can get an identical one. No, there needs to be more advantage to shields to make up for their weight and decreased offense. The very fact that you see so few of them on higher level characters proves that they're currently not worth it, which makes the server way too homogeneous.
I can think of quite a number of high level characters who use shields and I have one myself, and the advantage of the shields over other types is that they don't require feat and skill point investment. I don't think they need more power than that, at least in the AC department, as that would likely push the server in the other direction, where most people would start using shields because they can easily get considerably more AC than two handed weapons and dual wielding. I would be in favor of having utility feats added for shield users to give them more power, as I said, but I think anything more than a +1 increase to all saves while using a shield or 5 points or so increase to a combat skill point would be over buffing the shields.
I like the thought of adding shield specific feats for more reasons to play a pureclass fighter. Let that martial training pay off!
Honestly, I do think that parry adds, in the end, more AC than a shield user can muster, so it would be beneficial, I think, if those that invest the time in shield can at the end, still hold an advantage in defensive combat.
I can think of quite a number of high level characters who use shields and I have one myself, and the advantage of the shields over other types is that they don't require feat and skill point investment. I don't think they need more power than that, at least in the AC department, as that would likely push the server in the other direction, where most people would start using shields because they can easily get considerably more AC than two handed weapons and dual wielding. I would be in favor of having utility feats added for shield users to give them more power, as I said, but I think anything more than a +1 increase to all saves while using a shield or 5 points or so increase to a combat skill point would be over buffing the shields.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't think the feats I suggested would be over buffing shields, I think it would mean people having to choose between offense and defense, as they should. Right now, it's pretty easy to have it both ways. Like I said, I can very, very easily have +4 ac from parry by level 12 even in heavy armor.
Right now, people do not have to choose whether to build for offense or defense, anyone can easily have it both ways. Right now, people are merely choosing either to have more offense + less weight or to have skill points + more weight + less offense. Everyone on this server can spare two feats, t.he feats are not a factor and even my own suggestion is for 2 feats in the opposite direction.
I still think my original suggestion adds more variety and choice without over-powering, and you're never going to convince me that having an ac 2 higher in exchange for using a weapon that does a bit less than 3/4 the damage is an unfair bargain.
No matter what you say the indisputable fact is that the game designers originally intended us to have to choose between either high offense or high defense, and the parry system here has broken that. Conditional factors such as happening to have a priest who happens to have memorized the ONE spell that would make a difference is irrelevant. I'm talking about the overall, average use here, and you keep harping on one very specific circumstance.
Perhaps the rarity of shields has nothing to do with mechanics and instead has to do with what people prefer for their character aesthetics?
Once again you point out conditional factors as your argument against a general state of affairs. The rarity of shield using builds speaks for itself. If you're going to do less than 3/4 the damage because you have a shield (not to mention carrying the weight), you should have an ac that is higher, NOT just 4 higher for 10 rounds, but higher overall, all the time.
Do you honestly think +2 ac for shield users is going to break the server? Really? If so then I think you and I have reached the point where we're not accomplishing anything by continuing to speak to each other.
As for the "rarity" of shield using builds, I certainly don't agree with this. I can easily list 10 characters that are level 15 or above and use shields from memory: Lupinus Linus, Zidonne LeFebvre, Bastian (Can't remember his last name or even if he had any, a RDD played by Mika) , Zachary Dalensbane, Cyrus Gallant, Sieglinde, Marcus (He is a paladin, can't remember all the details again, I believe he is played by aprogressivevist though I am not certain), Samson, Katraka, Vjaya, Schala Wintermoon . And these are just 10 names that I can conjure from memory and my own character, and all characters listed are either active currently, or were active during the last year. It is really not a rare thing at all, definitely not as rare as you make it seem to be.
So, to recap, everyone agrees that it's perfectly possible to have the precise same ac with or without a tower shield +1. Enchanting that shield brings it up to the same AC as someone using two weapons and greater two weapon defense, and that the ONLY way for a shield user to have a higher AC than those NOT using a shield is through TEMPORARY effects such as spells or varnishes.
This. Is. Broken.
When you factor in feat investment, its balanced.
Perhaps the rarity of shields has nothing to do with mechanics and instead has to do with what people prefer for their character aesthetics?I can back this up, shields suck, why would you willingly use a shield when parry just looks so much cooler!?
Tower Shield +3 to +8 [+7 becoming the base at level 14]
When you factor in feat investment, its balanced.
When you factor in feat investment, its balanced.
There is no class on this server that cannot very easily afford 2 feats. The skill point investment is MUCH more of a factor than the feat investment, and still doesnt make it balanced.
Again, the only way a shield using character can get greater AC than a two weapon build or two-handed build is through temporary effects. That's just not right. It's not balanced, and it doesn't make IC sense. That rogue can parry blows with his off-hand dagger better than the bloke with the shield? Puh-lease.
When you factor in feat investment, its balanced.
There is no class on this server that cannot very easily afford 2 feats. The skill point investment is MUCH more of a factor than the feat investment, and still doesnt make it balanced.
Again, the only way a shield using character can get greater AC than a two weapon build or two-handed build is through temporary effects. That's just not right. It's not balanced, and it doesn't make IC sense. That rogue can parry blows with his off-hand dagger better than the bloke with the shield? Puh-lease.
A shield will get you a permanant +7ac
Parry on a two hander needs 2 feats and gear slots to hit the cap of +5
To get +7 from parry, you need to invest at least four feats
When you factor in feat investment, its balanced.
There is no class on this server that cannot very easily afford 2 feats. The skill point investment is MUCH more of a factor than the feat investment, and still doesnt make it balanced.
Again, the only way a shield using character can get greater AC than a two weapon build or two-handed build is through temporary effects. That's just not right. It's not balanced, and it doesn't make IC sense. That rogue can parry blows with his off-hand dagger better than the bloke with the shield? Puh-lease.
A shield will get you a permanant +7ac
Parry on a two hander needs 2 feats and gear slots to hit the cap of +5
To get +7 from parry, you need to invest at least four feats
And fighters get a bonus feat every single level here. Most other classes get ample feats to handle this as well.
Again, it's not balanced. The choice of shield or no shield is supposed to be a choice between offense and defense. Currently, this is a choice no one really has to make. Everyone can have the best of both worlds if they try, and most do. I'm not suggesting that Parry be nerfed, because I don't want every existing high level char to suddenly be weakened. I think most would find that upsetting. I merely suggest that a shield build be given the option of greater defense to make up for the greater weight and lesser offense. Is that so bad? Two feats for shield build, 2 AC.
Enchanted Tower Shield is +7
Dual wielders invest a ton of feats to have this. I suppose it should be worked toward what makes sense, but I really don't want to see Rogue / Fighters have more power. Just my honest two cents.
Enchanted Tower Shield is +7
Dual wielders invest a ton of feats to have this. I suppose it should be worked toward what makes sense, but I really don't want to see Rogue / Fighters have more power. Just my honest two cents.
Not a matter of a certain class combo having more strength. It's about making shields more appealing while having a distinct defense against someone going full blown assault on you and having the same defenses practically.
Were I to suggest anything, I would suggest adding % immunity based on the weight class of each shield. 5% for small, 10% for large, 15% for tower shields. They should make up for that weight instead of just shoving it into a magic bag when you're done using it at the very least. If this is the case with some shields already, I have no idea, but some input from a Developer would be nice.
Were I to suggest anything, I would suggest adding % immunity based on the weight class of each shield. 5% for small, 10% for large, 15% for tower shields. They should make up for that weight instead of just shoving it into a magic bag when you're done using it at the very least. If this is the case with some shields already, I have no idea, but some input from a Developer would be nice.
Were I to suggest anything, I would suggest adding % immunity based on the weight class of each shield. 5% for small, 10% for large, 15% for tower shields. They should make up for that weight instead of just shoving it into a magic bag when you're done using it at the very least. If this is the case with some shields already, I have no idea, but some input from a Developer would be nice.
and have the same AC at the end
You're right, the tower shield has more.
By the time the greatsword user peaks at +5, which is very difficult without some dexterity and lighter armor, the tower shield user will have an enchanted tower shield +7 to AC.
You're right, the tower shield has more.
By the time the greatsword user peaks at +5, which is very difficult without some dexterity and lighter armor, the tower shield user will have an enchanted tower shield +7 to AC.
You know a lot of people who enchant something that drops when they die? And by level 12 I could get +4 ac from parry, with my character's 14 dex and half plate.
It's really too bad that no one can actually use someone else's enchanted item.
Yes, people enchant their items, very frequently. Please do not speak of concurrent server meta when you confess to be a new player, and are, by all sights, indeed a new player.
A thing I suggest to new players, friends and others, is to wait and see how things play out, and observe, instead of immediately jumping to baseless conclusions.
and have the same AC at the end
There's the operative phrase. That one right there. 18 Strength character with Greatsword = 1d12 + 6 damage. 18 Strength character with Longsword and tower shield = 1d8 + 4 damage. Weight of greatsword, about 12 lbs, I believe? Weight of tower shield + longsword = minimum 30 lbs. These two should not EVER have the same AC on a permanent, non-buffed basis.
It's really too bad that no one can actually use someone else's enchanted item.
Yes, people enchant their items, very frequently. Please do not speak of concurrent server meta when you confess to be a new player, and are, by all sights, indeed a new player.
A thing I suggest to new players, friends and others, is to wait and see how things play out, and observe, instead of immediately jumping to baseless conclusions.
I'm actually not a new player. I played here over 5 years ago, then stopped because RL got too busy, stayed away about 5 years, then came back and couldn't remember my login name. That's the trouble with being on numerous forums and having a different login and pass for each.
Now, will anyone explain why it's even remotely ok for someone who is using two weapons to have the same ac as someone who's using an enchanted tower shield? Anyone?
Level 12.
15 Base Parry
+2 Dex
-7 from half plate
That's only +1 parry AC because you're leaving out the two feats you need to take it to +3 and the -at least- one wasted gear slot on a +3 parry bonus.
Because that person who has invested and trained extensively in a skill can and should have skills equal to or better than someone who strapped some wood to his arm and went herr durr shield.
and have the same AC at the end
There's the operative phrase. That one right there. 18 Strength character with Greatsword = 1d12 + 6 damage. 18 Strength character with Longsword and tower shield = 1d8 + 4 damage. Weight of greatsword, about 12 lbs, I believe? Weight of tower shield + longsword = minimum 30 lbs. These two should not EVER have the same AC on a permanent, non-buffed basis.
With all due respect, your opinion isn't fact and the majority of people here seem to disagree with your assessment. You may feel strongly that things are unbalanced but generally speaking when the majority of people agree on the state of something, that speaks more for it being balanced accordingly to the satisfaction of the community than not.
You seem to be a new player. You're tossing about a lot of claims that just aren't factually consistent and I think if when you've been on the server as long as some of the people responding to you you'll see that. Fact of the matter is you have no evidence to suggest the lack of shield use is purely - or even half - to do with any form of mechanic. You're also a quite bit off on the assumption that only a small amount of people enchant their items that can be dropped.
I think maybe you should play a bit more, get a better feel for things.
Going to play the devil's advocate here.
It doesn't matter that if it's "balanced" or not. It matters that it makes 'sense' more than anything.
What are you going to trust to stop a great sword coming at your left side that you can't evade? A flimsy parrying dagger, or a tower shield? Lol. Something should be done about shields, regardless. I find it absolutely pointless to have one because one blade apparently = +5 ac (enchanted tower shield?).
Were I to suggest anything, I would suggest adding % immunity based on the weight class of each shield. 5% for small, 10% for large, 15% for tower shields. They should make up for that weight instead of just shoving it into a magic bag when you're done using it at the very least. If this is the case with some shields already, I have no idea, but some input from a Developer would be nice.
This is also an excellent idea, and I like it a lot, though this would not require any feats. A lot of people seem to be fixated on the number of feats the parry build requires and my pointing out that feats are cheap here seems to be falling on deaf ears.
Were I to suggest anything, I would suggest adding % immunity based on the weight class of each shield. 5% for small, 10% for large, 15% for tower shields. They should make up for that weight instead of just shoving it into a magic bag when you're done using it at the very least. If this is the case with some shields already, I have no idea, but some input from a Developer would be nice.
You're right, the tower shield has more.
By the time the greatsword user peaks at +5, which is very difficult without some dexterity and lighter armor, the tower shield user will have an enchanted tower shield +7 to AC.
You know a lot of people who enchant something that drops when they die? And by level 12 I could get +4 ac from parry, with my character's 14 dex and half plate. Not difficult then to get +5 by lvl 17 without even raising my dex above the 14 it was at character creation. If I wanted to go the 2 handed route, I could get +7 if I raised my dex at lvls 8, 12, and 16, which would still leave my character with 16 strength.
No, you can't convince me that parry isn't over-powered. Which would you rather see? Parry nerfed, or shields be made a bit more worth the added weight and lowered offense?
How about a feat that let you use 3/4 Parry with small shields and 1/2 parry with large shields?
You said you could get +4 Parry AC in your half plate with dex. You didn't cover all the -other- things you'd need to do it at that level and you certainly never mentioned buffs. Don't move the goal posts, please.
How about a feat that let you use 3/4 Parry with small shields and 1/2 parry with large shields?
That way we could have a more viable selection with the shields and decrease a portion of the lovely, but [mostly] unused large and small shields.
the majority of people here seem to disagree with your assessment.
Perhaps, for Balance you'd want to make it harder to get parry out of the large shield.
So, say 14 Parry will get you +2 with a small shield but only +1 on the large shield? That alone would take them to tower shield levels, and you could have items like Bucklers.
Perhaps, for Balance you'd want to make it harder to get parry out of the large shield.
So, say 14 Parry will get you +2 with a small shield but only +1 on the large shield? That alone would take them to tower shield levels, and you could have items like Bucklers.
I was more thinking you would need more parry skill to make use of the small shield as effectively, and the large shield has a higher armor check penalty and more weight to balance it out.
Perhaps the rarity of shields has nothing to do with mechanics and instead has to do with what people prefer for their character aesthetics?
your entire thread is based on your own assumption that there is a lack of shield use due to mechanics. I would request that you prove that
I thought FinalHeaven had to be joking or sarcastic the first time he tossed this off:QuotePerhaps the rarity of shields has nothing to do with mechanics and instead has to do with what people prefer for their character aesthetics?
But then he repeated it twice more so does he truly believe it???
Then there should be no objection to adding FlattedFifth's suggested feats!!
No one is going to use them anyway because we all just build our characters based on aesthetics rather than mechanics. So unless shields are made prettier for us, we'll never use them :)Quoteyour entire thread is based on your own assumption that there is a lack of shield use due to mechanics. I would request that you prove that
If you read this thread and the detailed statistical arguments (based on mechanics) being made, it's all the evidence you need how most players make their decisions. I've not seen a single post saying, "Oooohh...I'll never use a shield because it's just too darn ugly."
They are much easier to equip right before combat without breaking immersion than actual armor is. But plenty PCs forego a nice dress and go banging around in full armor despite the appearance because of the mechanical advantage.
In fact it seems obvious to me that those who dislike the aesthetics of a shield would be most happy that shields are underpowerd. That way Port dandies don't have to be at a disadvantage by foregoing them :P
I don't think FlattedFifth has to prove something is self-evident in a mechanics-based game to anyone not being disingenuous.
I thought FinalHeaven had to be joking or sarcastic the first time he tossed this off:QuotePerhaps the rarity of shields has nothing to do with mechanics and instead has to do with what people prefer for their character aesthetics?
But then he repeated it twice more so does he truly believe it???
Then there should be no objection to adding FlattedFifth's suggested feats!!
No one is going to use them anyway because we all just build our characters based on aesthetics rather than mechanics. So unless shields are made prettier for us, we'll never use them :)Quoteyour entire thread is based on your own assumption that there is a lack of shield use due to mechanics. I would request that you prove that
If you read this thread and the detailed statistical arguments (based on mechanics) being made, it's all the evidence you need how most players make their decisions. I've not seen a single post saying, "Oooohh...I'll never use a shield because it's just too darn ugly."
They are much easier to equip right before combat without breaking immersion than actual armor is. But plenty PCs forego a nice dress and go banging around in full armor despite the appearance because of the mechanical advantage.
In fact it seems obvious to me that those who dislike the aesthetics of a shield would be most happy that shields are underpowerd. That way Port dandies don't have to be at a disadvantage by foregoing them :P
I don't think FlattedFifth has to prove something is self-evident in a mechanics-based game to anyone not being disingenuous.
Actually, looking back and counting, it appears that we have, including myself 7 people who agree that shields need to be made more useful in some way, 4 people who do not, and four people who seem to be ambivalent about whether or not anything needs to change.
So.... that's 7 for, 4 against, and 4 abstentions. But as usual, the against camp types the longest and most often (except for myself). :D
Actually, looking back and counting, it appears that we have, including myself 7 people who agree that shields need to be made more useful in some way, 4 people who do not, and four people who seem to be ambivalent about whether or not anything needs to change.
So.... that's 7 for, 4 against, and 4 abstentions. But as usual, the against camp types the longest and most often (except for myself). :D
Your math is interesting. When I go back and look I can't find 7 people that agree with your proposal in it's original form with no other comments or suggestions of their own.
7 people who agree that shields need to be made more useful in some way
Actually, looking back and counting, it appears that we have, including myself 7 people who agree that shields need to be made more useful in some way, 4 people who do not, and four people who seem to be ambivalent about whether or not anything needs to change.
So.... that's 7 for, 4 against, and 4 abstentions. But as usual, the against camp types the longest and most often (except for myself). :D
Your math is interesting. When I go back and look I can't find 7 people that agree with your proposal in it's original form with no other comments or suggestions of their own.
AHEM
Please show me where I specifically said there were 7 people who agreed with my proposal with no other comments or suggestions of their own. Look, what I said was......7 people who agree that shields need to be made more useful in some way
There is very few people who actually enchant their shields, because they can be dropped and lost, they are so costy to enchant, and that most people who use shields are actually clerics who don't need encahnted shield to get the +4.
There is very few people who actually enchant their shields, because they can be dropped and lost, they are so costy to enchant, and that most people who use shields are actually clerics who don't need encahnted shield to get the +4.
Personally, I would poll everyone on the server before making such a claim. Maybe they don't enchant their shields because of aesthetics :P
As for clerics, we are notorious for our fashion crimes :)
But shield users could maybe be allowed the bonus of the parry skill, up to a maximum of +2, to make up for what they lose in attack bonus. That would be fair.
I appreciate your reasoning Bad Bud, but by the same logic that parry is a skill grown over time, expertise in fighting with shields should also be rewarded. Shields should remain by their nature the blocking/parry implement of choice.
As it is now, parry at its max, is as good as tower shield +2 with the added benefit of an extra attack (for 2-weapon wielders), or extra damage (for 2-handers). The best non-enchanted shields being +1, +2 vs slashing.
Yes shields can be enchanted, but not everyone is able to enchant its own shield. I'm not advocating nerfing parry, nor the hassle of adding shield feats. But shield users could maybe be allowed the bonus of the parry skill, up to a maximum of +2, to make up for what they lose in attack bonus. That would be fair.
Unless they changed the base damage of greatswords on PoTM (They might have, I don't play 'em!), they'd be 2d6. Anyway, here's a more comprehensive link using a Greatsword and a Longsword as an example. NWN Damage Calculator: Greatsword vs Longsword (http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/nwn/analyze.php?1label=Greatsword&1game=nwn&1bab=0&1atktype=2h&1phd=2d6%2B1d8%2B1d8&1phth=0&1phthreat=19-20%2Fx2&1phxcrit=&1ohd=1d4&1ohth=0&1ohthreat=18-20%2Fx2&1ohxcrit=&1str=24&1dex=10&1sneakpct=0&1sneakd=1d6&1aoopct=0&1cleavepct=0&1circlekickpct=0&2label=Longsword&2game=nwn&2bab=&2atktype=1h&2phd=1d8%2B1d%2B1d6&2phth=&2phthreat=19-20%2Fx2&2phxcrit=&2ohd=&2ohth=&2ohthreat=&2ohxcrit=&2str=24&2dex=&2sneakpct=&2sneakd=&2aoopct=&2cleavepct=&2circlekickpct=&report=on&maxac=40)
If you're gonna use a bastard sword, you have to account that for an upgrade from 1d8 to 1d10 you're spending a feat, which puts you at the same feat deficit (Improved parry vs Exotic Weapon Proficiency). Though bastard sword does close the gap a little more, it'd be basically the equivalent of choosing Armor Skin and ASF failure and weight vs Epic Weapon Specialization.
But it still doesn't ever stop the two-hander from deciding he wants 2 more AC in a situation, and switching to a shield-- while a sword and board wouldn't have that same luxury of switching to suddenly parry two-hander without investing in the first place.
Actually, an incorrect comparison there. You forgot that in order to have that +2 AC vs a two-hander, the character has to permanently loose xp to enchant the shield, and then risk loosing the shield if he/she dies. Otherwise the shield user's AC is less by 1. So it's not "no investment". Also, that investment just brings the "sword and board" up to the SAME ac as someone with parry and improved two weapon defense, something a fighter, or better yet, fighter rogue, can very easily accomplish.
Let the shield user spend skills and feats to get up to the same ac as two weapon users, without resorting to magic. Then if he/she does resort to magic and winds up with a bit more defense..... gee..... you mean you'd have a situation where you can either loose offense in exchange for defense or loose defense in exchange for offense? Wow, what a novel concept. :roll:
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.
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...
Also, spellcraft and tumble are not class skills for every class but parry is.
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.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.
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 enchantingTo 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.
I'm not really following the technical debate at this point,
I'm not really following the technical debate at this point,
Oh. Oh, ok. :lol:
Hi! Thanks for taking the time. I will now proceed to gut your arguments. :DThe 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 enchantingTo 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.
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.
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.
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.