Shields and Defence

[Trodax]

Do you think it would be unbalancing to let shield bonuses apply even when flat-footed and feinted (so Defence would be 10+Shield in those situations instead of just 10)?

 

[jadrax]

Dont think it's that big a deal so Can't see it unbalancing the game.

 

[slaughterj]

I personally think they should be included, just like fighting defensively / total defense do (for feint at least; for flat-footed those generally won't come up, except maybe from surprise attackers appearing after combat has started, and as they are bonuses to Defense, they likely would still be in effect), and here's why. They are basically mobile cover. Even if you were flat-footed or feinted, cover is still going to apply, so the shield should as well. It is still a physical barrier that needs to be avoided by the attacker. Also, think about if you picked up a table to use as a shield from ranged attacks, that was basically as tall as the person picking it up - would it be reasonable for someone 30' away to improved feint and throw a dagger at that person without the table being a consideration? I don't think so. Thus this is a house rule I am considering. Plus, giving people an additional reason to use shields doesn't seem like a bad idea, they feel bad enough already when comparing damage dealt to the strong guy wielding a two-handed weapon.

 

[Sutek]

Plus the shield bonuses are relatively small. It's also easier thqan trying to apply the actual cover rules and instead just giving a target 10+S as flat-footed defense.

That's the way we actually play it. I interpreted "lose all Dodge and Parry bonuses" to mean those provided by class, while size and artificial mods can still be added (like shields). The exception in the RAW is size any way, and it doesn't really make sense for a turtle to have better DV than a trained warrior with a shield, sucker punched or not. (lol)

I wanna say that it even says somewhere that wearing armor doesn't impede DV, and since shields are armor...

 

[slaughterj]

Size should definitely still be included in those situations, if it isn't already, good point Sutek.

 

[Foxworthy]

would it be reasonable for someone 30' away to improved feint and throw a dagger at that person without the table being a consideration?.

I just want to point out that you can't feint a ranged attack since the feint rules specificly mention only melee attacks.

As for the shield issue I can see a case for it either way. The problem with a llowing the shield bonus is that you need to consider facing now. If I'm a thief and catch a soldier flat footed from "Behind" story wise I don't want him getting his shield bonus cause he wouldn't have a chance to use his shield to defend himself. Or from the side opposite the shield... I think you understand my point.

Edit: Also you may start having player say they can use thier off hand weapons to parry still if they have two weapon defense since it's liek a shield... but that's a apples and oranges really.

 

[Voltumna]

Do you think it would be unbalancing to let shield bonuses apply even when flat-footed and feinted (so Defence would be 10+Shield in those situations instead of just 10)?

A flat footed (without uncanny dodge) or feinted character can't defend, and since shields add a bonus to parry defence, they shouldn't add to DV in those situations. That is what Reflexive Parry is for, if you are wielding a weapon or a shield, then you can parry when surprised, but not if feinted.

I personally think they should be included, just like fighting defensively / total defense do (for feint at least; for flat-footed those generally won't come up, except maybe from surprise attackers appearing after combat has started, and as they are bonuses to Defense, they likely would still be in effect

To use FD or TD, you must have acted before your attacker, since FD will come into effect when it is your turn to attack, and you decide to fight defensively, and TD is a standard action, so I can't see those benefitting a flat footed character, but they do benefit a feinted character, if said character had a chance to act before his attacker. Same thing with Combat Expertise, you must attack and take the penalty in order to get the DV bonus.

I think I wouldn't allow the use of a shield bonus to parry, nor strenght bonus if a character is FF or feinted, because they are unable to defend themselves. Size bonus bonus is a different matter, but that would apply to mosters of some kind since all humans in Conan are medium sized.

 

[Trodax]

Size should definitely still be included in those situations, if it isn't already, good point Sutek.

Size is indeed included in Base Defense (10+Size).

As for the shield issue I can see a case for it either way. The problem with a llowing the shield bonus is that you need to consider facing now. If I'm a thief and catch a soldier flat footed from "Behind" story wise I don't want him getting his shield bonus cause he wouldn't have a chance to use his shield to defend himself. Or from the side opposite the shield... I think you understand my point.

Edit: Also you may start having player say they can use thier off hand weapons to parry still if they have two weapon defense since it's liek a shield... but that's a apples and oranges really.

Yeah, this is true. It is something that could lead to debatable situations (and god knows I don't want those! :wink: ).

If I allowed a shield bonus I'd probably just make it rough and say that it always applies when flat-footed, regardless of facing.

I think I wouldn't allow the use of a shield bonus to parry, nor strenght bonus if a character is FF or feinted, because they are unable to defend themselves.

Well, the idea is that the shield is there, sort of like cover, regardless if you're able to defend or not.

In Iron Heroes (another d20 system) shields add a passive bonus like this, but then you can also take feats that give you active shield bonuses (that don't apply when flat-footed) - so a shield gives some basic protection but you can also be extra good at using the shield to parry actively. I think it makes sense.

 

[slaughterj]

would it be reasonable for someone 30' away to improved feint and throw a dagger at that person without the table being a consideration?.

I just want to point out that you can't feint a ranged attack since the feint rules specificly mention only melee attacks.

Note, I included 30' range, because I was assuming people would understand ranged finesse feat was operating.

 

[Foxworthy]

would it be reasonable for someone 30' away to improved feint and throw a dagger at that person without the table being a consideration?.

I just want to point out that you can't feint a ranged attack since the feint rules specificly mention only melee attacks.

Note, I included 30' range, because I was assuming people would understand ranged finesse feat was operating.

What does ranged finesse have to do with feint?

 

[Trodax]

Well, the idea is that the shield is there, sort of like cover, regardless if you're able to defend or not.

I realised that using this logic you could also claim that shields should also add their bonus to Dodge Defense. I mean if the shield is giving a bonus simply by passively being in the way of an attack, why wouldn't that also be true if you are dodging?

Maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all...

 

[slaughterj]

I just want to point out that you can't feint a ranged attack since the feint rules specificly mention only melee attacks.

Note, I included 30' range, because I was assuming people would understand ranged finesse feat was operating.

What does ranged finesse have to do with feint?

I was merging finesse and feint! :shock: Is there no feat enabling a ranged feint?

 

[Foxworthy]

I was merging finesse and feint! :shock: Is there no feat enabling a ranged feint?

Not that I know of. Probably should be one but d20 seems to de emphasize ranged combat. Hopefully we'll see one in a future supplement though.

 

[Sutek]

The RAW says that, so long as you can do either Dodge or Parry, you cannot be sneak attacked, UNLESS the form of attack precludes the one that you have to use from working.

What does that mean? It means that anytime you can't Dodge, you can get sneak attacked from range because you can't parry ranged attacks. All it takes is losing Dodge and the "ranged feignt" is entirely possible, without special feat acquisition.

Essentially, as long as the target is distracted, you can shoot from being hidden and hide again with a -10 penalty and keep getting those sneak attack shots. I dont' have the book with me, but I can't recall Feignt even specifying Melee - just that it's a roll vs. roll scenario, so I think you can even make that Bluff check from ranged (bird calls, tossing stones and other distractions might amount to a Bluff). You can even move a distance of up to you Hide Skill Rank in feet with that -10 penalty (although I house ruled it to be -10 + feet moved, so staying put and simply ducking down is the optimum tactic.)

If you try to do it without the target being distracted, it's a -20 to the Hide check, but if your target is engaged in close combat, I'd say he's pretty distracted. :wink:

 

[Foxworthy]

The RAW says that, so long as you can do either Dodge or Parry, you cannot be sneak attacked, UNLESS the form of attack precludes the one that you have to use from working.

What does that mean? It means that anytime you can't Dodge, you can get sneak attacked from range because you can't parry ranged attacks. All it takes is losing Dodge and the "ranged feignt" is entirely possible, without special feat acquisition.

Essentially, as long as the target is distracted, you can shoot from being hidden and hide again with a -10 penalty and keep getting those sneak attack shots. I dont' have the book with me, but I can't recall Feignt even specifying Melee - just that it's a roll vs. roll scenario, so I think you can even make that Bluff check from ranged (bird calls, tossing stones and other distractions might amount to a Bluff). You can even move a distance of up to you Hide Skill Rank in feet with that -10 penalty (although I house ruled it to be -10 + feet moved, so staying put and simply ducking down is the optimum tactic.)

If you try to do it without the target being distracted, it's a -20 to the Hide check, but if your target is engaged in close combat, I'd say he's pretty distracted. :wink:

Feint specifies melee.

also by the COnan hide skill use thier is no -10 for the opponent being distracted. This is due to the feat that makes sniping a -10 instead of the -20. I forgot the name of the feat though. And really losing the ability to dodge is a rather rare thing in Conan.

 

[Voltumna]

also by the COnan hide skill use thier is no -10 for the opponent being distracted. This is due to the feat that makes sniping a -10 instead of the -20. I forgot the name of the feat though. And really losing the ability to dodge is a rather rare thing in Conan.

The feat is Out of thin air, from Across Thunder River and Hs Fiercest.

 

[Sutek]

Hmm...I read it in the rule book just this past weekend, under Hide. It explained both the circumstances for the -10 penalty and the -20.

:?

 

[Foxworthy]

Hmm...I read it in the rule book just this past weekend, under Hide. It explained both the circumstances for the -10 penalty and the -20.

:?

Ok, then you're probably thinking of the rules that say if you succeed in a bluff check or use another distraction to move behind cover.

I see where your coming from though since you think a person engaged in melee would be distracted. The problem with that is that in d20 games the combatants are considered to be aware of everything going around them.

Though since distraction isn't a condition I guess it's left up to the GM to decide. The only mention of distraction I found in a quick search of the SRD was for Telepathy which made opponents distacted giving them a -4 to certain rolls.

I'd suggest making the using a distaction and hide check as a full round action though that way it doesn't trump the feat "Out Of Thin Air'