Nerving shield ward (3.5)

[Zanticor]

He there,

Just a quick question: Do you feel like Shield Ward from PH2 is to strong a feat for a defensive character? My DM ruled it only affects the touch ac and not the grapple, trip etc modifier. Is that fair or does that make the feat rather weak?

Kind regards,

Zanticor

[togapika]

Fighter types already have enough problems, no need to nerf them further...

[Aran Banks]

It doesn't break the fighter at all. You should get that bonus everywhere.

Houseruling a decrease in its usefulness is making the feat weaker. Tell your DM that GitP disagrees with him.

Also, the title should be "Nerfing shield ward" (emphasis mine) and I believe this belongs in the Roleplaying Games thread.

[T.G. Oskar]

Does Shield Ward really deserve a nerf? Let's see:

1) It requires a feat as a prerequisite (Shield Specialization), which means you have to...

2) Be proficient in shields. Yep, no Shield spell on that one. Also, you must...

3) Hold the shield. No Dancing Shields for you, which means you are a...

4) Sword and Board warrior, which is considered a deficient fighting tactic in D&D. Furthermore, you already have...

5) Parrying Shield (from Lords of Madness), which does exactly what you propose, and it's actually easier to qualify for (only needs shield proficiency, which you can get rather easily). Exactly the same as proposed.

Thus, in conclusion, no: Shield Ward isn't powerful. It's actually a patch for the fighting classes, which have to struggle (no pun intended) with the spellcasters in utility. Adding...what, 2~4 plus enhancement bonus to touch AC is strong? Well, spellcasters already topped that with...what, +10 bonus to AC with a few spells? Or, heck, complete immunity to spells, or concealment, or invisibility, or...you get the idea. The fact that you can get the bonus on bull rush, disarm, grapple, sunder and trip is a godsend, since you won't specialize enough on those if you wear a shield.