Talk:Shield Clip (3.5e Equipment)

Too Cheap
While I like the idea of putting shields on your shoulder (as impractical as that is when you really think about it) this does what Animate's purpose does, free up your hand, for far far cheaper. Its too cheap right now, but keeping in spirit with the concept, why don't you have it where you can clip the shield to your ARM (like a buckler does) and you incur penalty to attacks using that hand (TWF or two handing a weapon) based on the type of shield. -2 for lights, -3 for heavies, -4 for towers. -4 is no penalty to sneeze at, but taking it at a cheap price, without magic... vs waiting to get animated, may still be worth it.

As for the cost of the idea above... a lot more than 5g to be sure, but it need not be Animate Shield +1's cost either. For that I'll have to ask others. -- Eiji-kun 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Phyiscally, the shoulder was the practical way to do it, since the large shield were strapped to the are, with the exception of the round shield. As for TWF penalty, prehaps double the shield armor check penalty? That would make for slightly better scaling in my mind, and make cliped tower shields an option for two handed weapon users only.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 06:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Armor check penalty isn't much of a penalty at all, it only hurts people trying to sneak or swim, neither which are the people who are the ones planning to clip tower shields to their shoulders. You had it right in duplicating the buckler shield's attack penalty, since that is a penalty that matters to everyone (or rather, to the people who would take advantage of having a shield and using two hands).


 * Not sure how 2Hing is different for tower shields than it is for TWF. (EDIT: Tower Shield Clipped at -4 actually is better than I thought since you normally take a -2 penalty holding it. The penalty is greater, but at a 2 point change the value is pretty good.  I will contemplate this math.)-- Eiji-kun 08:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Historically, that was the intended purpose of the shield clip: it allowed one to weild a two handed weapon and benefit from a shield. I really don't see a reason to penalize its intended use.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Mechanics. For example, historically and realistically speaking, guns should probably do 10d6 a shot, with large clips, quick reload times, be fairly cheap, and be simple weapons that completely dominate anything swords and arrows have.  But while that might actually be the case, it's hardly fair or sensible.  I don't think an attack penalty breaks the flavor any.  It is a burden of weight and balance to have it somewhere it's not normally.  Just as someone with little knowledge of what is "historically right" too I can say it makes sense, because I can see the buckler and tower shield both have conditions where it messes with your attack bonus.  This would fit the pattern, know what I'm saying? -- Eiji-kun 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Historically, if you used a shield clip and a two-handed weapon / two weapons, were you as good with your shield as people who used a shield and a one handed weapon, or as good with your two-handed weapon / two weapons as people who did not have a shield? If you were worse at these things, was the size of your shield related to your decreased ability? I think this likely the case, and because of that I think Eiji's suggested penalties better model the historical aspects you want to model. - Tarkisflux 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just bringing this up again in my eternal quest to have this Animated Shield light not be keeper than freaking silk rope. Raise that price yo, this is still too much of a steal! -- Eiji-kun 08:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it penalizes all of the reasons one would want an animated shield in the first place. If anything, I'd up the penalties, not price, unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 04:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The penalties aren't huge (and oddly, somehow more severe for TWFing... why nerf an already nerfed way of fighting?), but more importantly there's literally no one who wouldn't take this over nothing. The cheapness is such that there isn't a reasonable alternative not to get this.  Ideally a good balanced object should be priced for a certain level and be priced to make you say "maybe" when considering it.  You can do that by making it either sufficiently expensive or sufficiently niche.  If it's something lots of people use (and save arcane spellcasters, everyone benefits from a shield), then it shouldn't be so cheap that there's no reason not to use it.  It should be expensive enough to go "perhaps my money should be spent on X Y Z instead" so only those who are going for shield-use invest in it.


 * Personally I'd like to see the penalties evened out (no reason to nerf TWF) and the price increased, so that its intended audience (level 1 I presume) has "save your money" as a viable choice. -- Eiji-kun 05:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)