PDA

View Full Version : The problem with sword and board



Veklim
2011-05-25, 07:42 AM
OK, here's the thing. I've wanted a proper sword and board class for a fair old while now, and I've decided I'll just have to make one. Prior to this though, I wanted honest opinions and experiences on the topic, and maybe a little inspiration too.
The basic structure of the class is kinda in my mind already, so no need to delve too deeply into mechanics just yet, that's for the build itself. This is just to test the waters, and get a few expert opinions if I can.

Way I see it, sword and board should be all about defense, unexpected attacks and a healthy dose of shield-based abilities. I'd LOVE to make one on the paladin model (just with useful abilities instead), but run towards arcane or psionic bonuses and abilities instead of divine, drop the spells ENTIRELY and just have limited use SLAs in conjuction with a shield.

2 provisos!

1. No ToB please, I'm avoiding it for reasons due to large (and fairly inexperienced) groups which I run.
2. No mention please of how this sounds like a soulknife rebuild with a shield instead of weapon, unless it's actually constructive to the development! I'm already well aware of the superficial similarities in idea.

Thanks in advance of anything guys, this forum is a positive wealth of knowledge and useless information, I must tap it!

Barbarian MD
2011-05-25, 08:34 AM
In building my version I basically cherry-picked everything I thought might be important for a sword and board, so if you want a concentrated dose of shield features, I don't mind you getting inspiration from my Shield Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192533).

Veklim
2011-05-25, 09:25 AM
Most gracious of you dude, thanks.

It's an awesome class, shame about the ToB stuff or I may have just left well enough alone, but I need a non-maneuver class!

The favoured shield stuff is similarly cool, but I'm gonna go for more choice with the bonuses, and less with the type of shield. Want a seperate set of SLA shield abilities chosen from a list, and I may use some of the favoured stuff for shield type-specific ones.

Shield mastery, on the other hand, is very hard to top. It's pretty much exactly what I was planning with fixed-feat progression, but the capstone is mega funky. Would you mind if I lifted shield mastery 'as-is', and did a cut'n'shut with the SLAs and defense abilities I'm working on? You'll have full credit for the ability progression, naturally!

Veklim
2011-05-25, 09:29 AM
....incidentally, anyone know of a comprehensive list of shield-oriented feats? I've compiled a few but I'm positive I'm missing a few more!

Barbarian MD
2011-05-25, 09:55 AM
Absolutely! Use it and make all the changes you want--it's sort of the nature of this board and homebrew that things get tweaked through a thousand iterations and improved upon.

I know the capstone is really funky, but there's a reason I included it. I discovered while playing a shield-focused phalanx type warrior that i had never thought about: the DM hit me with a guy wielding a brilliant energy weapon. It really ruins your day when you've devoted 20 levels towards being the unstoppable tank, only to have all your defenses cut through like butter. That's the main reason behind the capstone, even if it's really complicated wording. I was trying to prevent the build from being negated by a single fancy trick.

Shield Feats: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/search.html?keyword=shield. Not all of them, but it's a fair number.

Also:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166004
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630

(I did LOTS of research when building mine. Wish I could remember all the places I looked...)

Veklim
2011-05-25, 10:20 AM
Sweet dude, that's more than I need! Thanks again. :smallbiggrin:

Seerow
2011-05-25, 10:31 AM
Shield Feats: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/search.html?keyword=shield. Not all of them, but it's a fair number.



Man it's sad with how many shield feats they made, using a Shield in D&D still sucks without homebrew.

Veklim
2011-05-26, 05:37 AM
Yes indeed, that's why I feel I need to make this one. Speaking of such, it'll be ready to start mechanical construction in the next 48 hours or so, but I still need a name!
Half of these feats should be merged imo.

DrWeird
2011-05-26, 07:40 AM
I think this should really be a prestige class for the fighter with just a basic BAB and [Insert Shield-related feat here, Sword related feat optional] requirement, in your case. Something with a naturally early entry.

...Or you could go my route (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198907), as I'm actually working on a sword and shield fighter modification right now (and a fear-based fighter, but that's neither here nor there) and it'd be great to tag team for ping-ponging ideas.

Veklim
2011-05-26, 10:53 AM
I think this should really be a prestige class for the fighter with just a basic BAB and [Insert Shield-related feat here, Sword related feat optional] requirement, in your case. Something with a naturally early entry.
I considered this, but there's another project of mine which is brewing in the back of my mind (connected to this class concept of mine) for a dual shield PrC, and I wanted to take the requirement cues from this base, not a modified fighter.
Besides, the concept is more than a niche, it's a gaping hole in combat. I say this for 2 reasons.
1. Sword and board is SO underprivileged as a style that nothing short of ToB stuff has adequately encompassed the idea so far (based solely on what I have seen for myself).
2. I want a slightly magical (Su abilities, not spellcasting) fighting class which excels in defence and combat positioning. The guy with shield and incredible reflexes, blocking the incoming fireball, is certainly an achetypal image, and not one which should be relegated to PrCs.


...Or you could go my route (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=198907), as I'm actually working on a sword and shield fighter modification right now (and a fear-based fighter, but that's neither here nor there) and it'd be great to tag team for ping-ponging ideas.
Whereas this project of your's is not what I'm after, I am still curious and intrigued by it. I've seen pretty much the same fix idea on here a couple of times now, I would strongly suggest you check this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194834) out. It may well give you some more inspiration. I might even have a proper look through your stuff and suggest a few bits once this base class gets a little momentum.

Seerow
2011-05-26, 11:00 AM
I also want to chime in as disagreeing with needing a purely sword and board fighting class. Sword and Board is a fighting style, but classes are more than just a fighting style, they're a broad archtypical concept. A Paladin or a Fighter should be able to encompass the Sword and Board style as well as any base class. It's a flaw in the system that they cannot without gimping themselves.


A class for a specific fighting style should be a Prestige Class, base classes should be able to choose their own style. Hell, even Rangers get to choose between TWFing and Archery.

Veklim
2011-05-26, 11:16 AM
There should be 3 different fighting styles for my shield class; 'ally defence', 'spell interference' and 'bash happy', so it's not all flatline ability/feat/ability stuff, anyhow...
Monk is a specific fighting style class (whatever you may think about it.)
Scout is basically a specific fighting style class (skirmisher type.)
Soulknife is definitely a specific fighting style class (again, whatever else you may think of it!)

I have just named 3 BASE classes which specialise in a fighting style, and I'm sure there are more. I've always seen PrCs as the 'ultimate master' class for a style, not just the 'proficient beyond normal parameters'. Fighters are meant to be able to learn any fighting style, and even mix'n'match them a bit, but the shield fighting style is broken on a feat and rules basis, not just as a practical concept. As such I see this as a chance to not reinvent an existant and repeatedly fixed class, but to create something fresh which has abilities to make it work, instead of trying to jury-rig existant features.

Then again, I may make this and look at it in 3 months and think, 'Wow! Seerow was bang on the money there...'. We'll see in about 3 months :smallwink:

Seerow
2011-05-26, 11:30 AM
There should be 3 different fighting styles for my shield class; 'ally defence', 'spell interference' and 'bash happy', so it's not all flatline ability/feat/ability stuff, anyhow...
Monk is a specific fighting style class (whatever you may think about it.)
Scout is basically a specific fighting style class (skirmisher type.)
Soulknife is definitely a specific fighting style class (again, whatever else you may think of it!)

I have just named 3 BASE classes which specialise in a fighting style, and I'm sure there are more.

First, I want to point out that 2 of the 3 classes you just cited as single fighting style classes are widely considered horrendously weak. There's a reason for that! The focus of abilities in those classes is too narrow to support a class by itself.

As for the Scout, I don't consider mobility a fighting style, I consider it something that -everyone- should be capable of, whether you want to go with sword and board or a reach weapon, or two weapon fighting, being mobile should be a viable option. So I wouldn't lump the scout in with those other two classes.


I've always seen PrCs as the 'ultimate master' class for a style, not just the 'proficient beyond normal parameters'. Fighters are meant to be able to learn any fighting style, and even mix'n'match them a bit, but the shield fighting style is broken on a feat and rules basis, not just as a practical concept. As such I see this as a chance to not reinvent an existant and repeatedly fixed class, but to create something fresh which has abilities to make it work, instead of trying to jury-rig existant features.

I'm not suggesting fixing the Fighter, I am however suggesting the better alternative is to make shield feats better. Make it so it is useful to the Fighter, the Paladin, or to anyone else who may want to take them. Condense them into fewer feats, and give them more benefit. Not just "I raise my AC sky high" but something actually useful to make the shield fighter worth having in the group and not something for enemies to ignore.

From there you then make your new prestige class with a series of class features that builds upon and expands beyond what is available via feats to be the master of the fighting style.

The point is that "Shield Fighter" is a class that represents a concept that is already represented in at least 5 other base classes I can think of offhand (Fighter, Paladin, Crusader, Knight, Warblade), making a new class that makes any of these existing classes using an iconic fighting style to me seems very counter-intuitive, when there are other means available.

Veklim
2011-05-26, 11:41 AM
well, I'm going ahead anyway, but I do see where you're coming from. Maybe after you start to see where I'm going with it, you'll understand MY arguement a little more. It's not just about using a shield, it's about fighting a wizard on reasonably even ground, with a shield. I'm trying to make a class which does sword and board combat on a mid-high tier, not 4 or 5

I WILL be attempting to fix the feat thing too though, that may actually be a good starting point for the project as a whole.

Arbitrarious
2011-05-26, 04:57 PM
Absolutely! Use it and make all the changes you want--it's sort of the nature of this board and homebrew that things get tweaked through a thousand iterations and improved upon.

I know the capstone is really funky, but there's a reason I included it. I discovered while playing a shield-focused phalanx type warrior that i had never thought about: the DM hit me with a guy wielding a brilliant energy weapon. It really ruins your day when you've devoted 20 levels towards being the unstoppable tank, only to have all your defenses cut through like butter. That's the main reason behind the capstone, even if it's really complicated wording. I was trying to prevent the build from being negated by a single fancy trick.

Shield Feats: http://dnd.savannahsoft.eu/search.html?keyword=shield. Not all of them, but it's a fair number.

Also:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166004
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630

(I did LOTS of research when building mine. Wish I could remember all the places I looked...)


Mind if I take you up on that offer? I was actually tweaking with a Shield prestige class and you have some great stuff in there.

Veklim
2011-05-27, 11:59 AM
OK, I've looked at the feats and MY GODS there's some wasted feat choices there, I knew it was bad but this is a MESS.

I was going to address every feat and try to condense them, but bless the wonder of jiriku, he has produced these! (Thankyou mhvaughan for the link!) The bits in red are my edit, all will become clear further down the post!


ACTIVE SHIELD DEFENSE [Fighter, General]
Your expert use of your shield allows you to strike at vulnerable foes even when you forgo your own attacks in favor of defense.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with shields, Shield Specialization (Focus)
Benefit: When fighting defensively and wielding a shield in your off hand, you can use a shield bash to make an attack of opportunity without the standard penalties. When taking Total Defense, you still threaten the area around you and can use shield bashes to make attacks of opportunity with a -4 penalty.
Advancement: Reduce the penalty you take on shield bashes while in Total Defense by of your base attack bonus.
If you have base attack bonus +12 or greater and are using a shield, then once per round you may declare Total Defense as a swift action immediately after performing a successful shield bash.
Normal: You take a -4 penalty on all attacks while fighting defensively. You cannot attack while using the Total Defense action, and declaring the Total Defense action requires a standard action.
AGILE SHIELD FIGHTER [Fighter, General]
You are skilled in combining your shield bash attack with an armed strike. When you use your shield in unison with a weapon, your training allows you to score telling blows with both.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with shields, Improved Shield Bash, Shield Specialization(Focus)
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced when your off-hand weapon is a shield. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by two and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
You gain an additional attack at your highest base attack bonus with your offhand shield (you perform a shield bash). You gain additional attacks with the offhand shield at progressively lower attack bonuses whenever your base attack bonus grants you additional attacks with your primary weapon.
Advancement: If you also have the Combat Reflexes feat and a base attack bonus of +6 or greater, then you may choose to attack once with your primary weapon and once with a shield bash when making an attack of opportunity (incurring the normal penalties for attacking with weapon and shield).
SHIELDMATE [Fighter, General]
You can protect those near you with your shield.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1, proficiency with at least one type of shield.
Benefit: When you are wielding a shield with which you are proficient in your off hand, friendly creatures within the range of your natural reach get a +1 shield bonus to their Armor Class. If you are using a tower shield, those creatures get a +2 shield bonus.
The creatures lose the bonus if they are no longer within your reach, if you're grappling, or if you're stunned, paralyzed, or otherwise unable to take actions.
The shield bonus doesn't stack with other shield bonuses the allied creatures may have.
Advancement: If you have base attack bonus +4 or greater, the bonus increases to +2, or +4 if you are using a tower shield. If you have a base attack bonus +18 or greater, the bonus is +3, or +6 if you are using a tower shield.
If you also have the Shield Specialization feat, you grant your allies an additional +1 AC when you use a shield with which you are specialized.

Jiriku also produced shield specialisation but I would like to alter that as follows;

SHIELD FOCUS [Fighter, General]
You are skilled in using a shield, allowing you to gain greater defensive benefits from it.
Prerequisite: Proficiency with at least one type of shield.
Benefit: Choose one type of shield with which you are proficient. When wielding a shield of the appropriate type in your off hand, you increase its shield bonus to AC by 1, and your shield bonus also applies to your reflex saves.
Advancement: If you have a base attack bonus of +6 or greater, your shield bonus also applies to your touch AC and on checks or rolls to resist bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, or trip attempts against you.
Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time you select it, choose a different type of shield

I've called it focus to bring it in line with the weapon feats of the same name, and I've incorporated Shield Ward into it. Superficially it seems a bit much but it allows the 'essential' feats to be gathered more easily, reducing the need for gimping yourself.

Of course this means we're missing specialisation, but not to worry, by taking a leaf out of mhvaughan's book with his Favoured Shield (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192533) ability, a feat may be born!

SHIELD SPECIALISATION [Fighter, General]
Your abilities with your favoured shield surpass that of all but a few.
Prerequisite: Shield Focus, Fighter level 4 OR base attack bonus +6
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus to hit and damage rolls with shield bash attacks using your Shield Focus shield. Additionally you gain one of the following dependant upon which shield you specialise in:
BUCKLER:You retain your shield bonus to AC while fighting with an off-hand weapon or two-handed weapon. You take no penalty for using a buckler in combat. Treat the buckler as a light shield for determining damage. You may use shield spikes on a buckler.
LIGHT SHIELD:Light shields you wield are treated as though they had the Keen enchantment. You shield is treated as both a bludgeoning and a slashing weapon.
HEAVY SHIELD:When wielding a heavy shield, gain a 10% miss chance.
TOWER SHIELD:You may make shield bash attacks with a tower shield. Treat this as a heavy shield that does 2d4 damage. You do not take the normal -2 penalty for wielding a Tower Shield in combat. You may use shield spikes on a tower shield.

Well then, do all these add up to a better basis for feats?

The base class idea is becoming shaky now, I have a clear picture in my mind of what I want to do with it, and a 10 level PrC won't cover it all. However...

The point is that "Shield Fighter" is a class that represents a concept that is already represented in at least 5 other base classes I can think of offhand (Fighter, Paladin, Crusader, Knight, Warblade), making a new class that makes any of these existing classes using an iconic fighting style to me seems very counter-intuitive, when there are other means available.
...this arguement is still knocking on my head, and I'm beginning to see what you mean, there are too many classes which should have access to better shield usage, it shouldn't be restricted to one class. If these feats would go far enough towards restoring some playability for the other classes then perhaps a PrC is the better way to go.

My original thoughts for the class were to use a paladin-esque chassis, but turn it into arcane (self powered) instead of divine (3rd party magics). The defences were to run around the idea of shields in one form or another and to provide defensive bonuses to allies, and the spells were to be replaced with SLAs/encounter to be chosen from a short list following 3 or more different 'styles'. Perhaps this class will still come to being at some point but for now, I consider Seerow to be on the higher ground, I bow to your wisdom sir!

As such, my focus is shifting to a PrC as a condensed version of the class. However, because of the principle ideas of said class, it will have to be more along the lines of an arcane archer. More will follow once it's settled in my head.

Seerow
2011-05-27, 12:27 PM
Well if you want to bounce ideas on what you want the PrC to do we can help out with that. Also, I just updated the sword and board style into me Rebalancing The Weapon Styles (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199946) thread, which may help you some.

Spoilering cause here my rambling goes kind of off topic.
Basically my philosophy is that all weapon styles should be relatively easy to max out (roughly 3 feats to master the core style), and the options from there should be whether to pick up a second style (either something totally different, such as THFing and Archery, or something that synergizes, such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Archery [throwing weapons] or Einhand and Sword and Board), or to pick up other feats that are style-agnostic to flesh it out further (things like Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Spring Attack, all the fun options that can be applied to any fighting style and work well). My thought is that any character should be able to use the fighting style they want with a reasonable investment, (roughly half their non-bonus feats), as opposed to an unreasonable one (100-200% of their non-bonus feats).

This is why I opposed a shield fighter class, it's the same reason I'd oppose an Archer class, or a Two Weapon Fighting class, these are archtypes that most any class should be able to fill, what the class determines is what route you take to filling it

Veklim
2011-05-27, 01:44 PM
I like the rebalancing thread, it's certainly a way to go, but feels to me like too much to change, that set requires a fundamental change to the feat lists of multiple styles, not just sword and board, and it covers abilities slightly differently. They're good starting points for abilities in the PrC though.

I have a few ideas in mind, but one of the main things which I wanted to achieve was 'spell blocking' with said shield. I want to have a list of abilities which may be chosen from at certain levels (number of uses should be easier to place once the structure of the class is settled). Here's an example of a few 'spell interference' style abilities:

Disperse Spell
You may make a reflex save vs. any targetted spell or SLA (including any which require an attack roll), success negates the spell.

Reflect Spell
Requires: Disperse Spell
Whenever you successfully use Disperse Spell to negate a spell or SLA you may choose a new target for it instead of negating it, using the initial DC modified by any magical bonuses to AC your shield may have.

Absorb Spell
Requires:Disperse Spell
Whenever you successfully use Disperse Spell to negate a spell or SLA you gain a bonus to your shield's AC bonus, equal to half the level of the spell absorbed (rounded up). This bonus lasts for a number of rounds equal to your (wisdom?) modifier.

Your 'Warder' feat fits loosely into this style idea, with the idea of blocking lines of effect, which I think should be a low-level class feature of the PrC, btw.

Other ideas fall more towards your Shield Bash Mastery idea, which is the 'bash happy' approach, and an 'ally defense' style which would focus on abilities akin to the Devoted Defender's Harm's Way.

Seerow
2011-05-27, 01:52 PM
Yeah I see shield bashing and protecting as two very different styles.

Shield Bashing should be a more selfish style, where you are dealing more damage, and gaining more personal defense. Non-shield bashing should be more of a team player, focusing on protecting allies and making enemies go through you to get to them.

Honestly, I would take the two different styles and make them separate PrCs, so that difference can be better emphasized. But if you think that a singular shield master PrC fits your vision better, more power to you, the extra versatility is probably needed for a non-maneuver based martial class.

Veklim
2011-05-27, 02:25 PM
Indeed, this way we can make the 3 styles, bash, anti-magic and protection, and make one a primary style, with the option of jumping into a second one with less total abilities a few levels later. The idea of doing multiple PrCs was VERY tempting to me also, but I think starting with just the one model with branching options keeps it simple. We could always create a bunch of 3 level PrCs to emphasise styles furthr, but this is mainly restricted to ideas like dual shield wielding (which I haven't given up on!).

jiriku
2011-05-27, 09:24 PM
I was going to link my sword-n-board feats thread, but someone beat me to it, so... carry on! Carry on!

I also agree that a combat style using specific weapons (or shields in this case) is more appropriately modeled with a feat chain or a 3- or 5-level prestige class. Something like exotic weapon master or tempest... except better than either of those. :smallbiggrin:

Veklim
2011-05-28, 09:21 AM
I also agree that a combat style using specific weapons (or shields in this case) is more appropriately modeled with a feat chain or a 3- or 5-level prestige class.

If I were aiming at just the one shield fighting concept then I'd agree completely with you, but I really want to try and present a full 10 level PrC which gives multiple options around a core set of shield mechanics.

On that note, I'm now looking at combat movement for this concept, there should DEFINITELY be a way of carefully placing yourself in the best place on a battlefield but I'm not sure whether to go down the SLA route (dimension door et al) or give reflexive movements (more akin to free 5ft or 10ft steps under certain conditions), any thoughts?

Ideas on the styles:

Bash happy:
1. Free sunder attempts if someone misses you by 5 or more (instead of blocking with the shield, you break stuff.)
2. Some sort of static attack for the shield, probably when bullrushed, overrun or charged, where you may make a free trip attempt under correct conditions.

Ally defence:
1. You may switch places with any ally within a certain distance from you (would probably scale throughout the levels) who is targetted by an attack. (Devoted defender stylee!)
2. Allies gain cover and reflex bonuses whilst behind you. (Obvious, I'm sure)
3. Some sort of 'shining beacon' ability which gives allies a morale boost, but makes you a HUGE shiny target.

That's it for now!

Dryad
2011-05-28, 12:33 PM
What I think, personally, is this:
Sword'n'board underperforms on both offence and defence. Especially the latter is a problem that needs to be fixed.
The lacking of offence is pretty decent, in my opinion, as long as you add lots and lots of tricks to the mix: Trips, disarms, spell interrupts, spell reflection even... Again; all sorts of tricks that make the class interesting.

However: The reason it will still underperform is the following: Dungeons and Dragons (3.+) does not have an (reliable) 'aggro-system.' Playing a tank is completely useless if you can't keep the opponent's attention, and that's why in DnD, damage output really is all that counts.
And that's why sword'n'board is likely not going to add much, unless you make it a damage powerhouse.

I really do commend your desire for making it a viable choice, but I think we should first sit down and home-brew a reliable aggro-system.

Seerow
2011-05-28, 12:37 PM
I really do commend your desire for making it a viable choice, but I think we should first sit down and home-brew a reliable aggro-system.


Or roll something like Goad, Knight's Challenge, or one of the 4e Defender Marks into the shield feats. No need to make something like a WoW threat table where the monster attacks whoever's dealt the most damage with the tank generating three times their damage in threat, or anything like that. Just give large enough penalties for ignoring you that an intelligent enemy simply won't want to do it.

Dryad
2011-05-28, 12:48 PM
I agree with that; there are more ways than one to skin this bunny. However, if you do make the penalties, then they should count. After fourth level, the penalty inflicted by a Mark alone is simply too small to really matter, and people will just have to go with their gut-feeling to see which player is most dangerous. As a result, what you get is all or nothing: Either monsters completely ignore the mark, or they stick to it unwaveringly.

I'm not going to suggest my already existing aggro system. First off: DnD damage is too great for it to work; it would become clunky. Second: If I ever release that system, I want it to be sparkling and new. :P
WoW aggro is actually a pretty good idea overall, but the devs kind of screwed up with the amount of threat produced by tanks (too easy to keep aggro). Also, as with my own system, the numbers in DnD are too big for WoW aggro to work well; it'd just be too much calculus on the table.
So we need another system. The DDO Intimitank system might have some merit; roll intimidate checks to draw the attention of a monster. Shaky, but maybe an okay start to homebrew from.

LOTRfan
2011-05-28, 12:51 PM
In building my version I basically cherry-picked everything I thought might be important for a sword and board, so if you want a concentrated dose of shield features, I don't mind you getting inspiration from my Shield Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192533).

Out of curiosity, what tier would that class be without the maneuvers?

Seerow
2011-05-28, 12:51 PM
So we need another system. The DDO Intimitank system might have some merit; roll intimidate checks to draw the attention of a monster. Shaky, but maybe an okay start to homebrew from.


With my shield feats, I made it an intimidate check opposed by the enemy's will, failing the save means that they must include you in any attack, or take a penalty to attack rolls, saves, and ability DCs based on your BAB. (like 1+1 per 3 points of BAB).

Dryad
2011-05-28, 01:00 PM
Okay; so it scales.
I like that. A lot.
There's no {heart} smiley. :smallfrown:

Veklim
2011-05-28, 05:15 PM
With my shield feats, I made it an intimidate check opposed by the enemy's will, failing the save means that they must include you in any attack, or take a penalty to attack rolls, saves, and ability DCs based on your BAB. (like 1+1 per 3 points of BAB).

Yeah, I liked that bit especially. I'm not sure if it's an important enough ability to make it a feat, open to one and all, but as a class feature it kicks some serious ass.

Let's run with this though, I'm making the class with a few SLAs and at least a couple of Su stuff, this would be really simple to peg as a compulsion effect.
Come and get it!
1/encounter (or not..?) you may make a special intimidate check (with a -2 penalty per additional target beyond the first) to grab the attention of any number of opponents within 60ft and line of sight to you. All targetted enemies get the overwhelming urge to attack you to the best of their abilities for a number of rounds equal to your Con modifier. A successful will save (DC = your intimidate result + 1/2 BAB) reduces the duration to 1 round. This is a compulsion effect and therefore ineffectual versus mindless creatures like (un-awakened) undead or constructs. This does not preclude a wizard from casting chain lightning or the like, but it does mean you will be the primary target of any such spell or ability.



And that's why sword'n'board is likely not going to add much, unless you make it a damage powerhouse.


Or I use something like the above, and remeber Devoted Defender. I don't need agro so much if I can put myself between an ally and an enemy, which is gonna have to be a large part of the core for this PrC. I do see what you mean though, but I'm taking it more as a word to the wise rather than a suggestion :smallwink:

What can I say, I'm stubborn! It took Seerow & company 4 or 5 posts to convince me this should be a PrC after all! :smallbiggrin: