Difference between revisions of "Talk:Broken Shields (3.5e Variant Rule)"

From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Added rating.)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Ratings ==
 
== Ratings ==
 +
{{Rating |rater=Foxwarrior
 +
|rating=like
 +
|reason=I'm not sure if it's balanced at all, but it's certainly interesting. You should try it and tell us if it breaks the game.
 +
}}
 
{{Rating |rater=Havvy
 
{{Rating |rater=Havvy
 
|rating=like
 
|rating=like
Line 11: Line 15:
 
== Shields and Spells ==
 
== Shields and Spells ==
  
Should shields be able to block all spells? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
+
Should shields be able to block all spells? (Of course, mean the ones that allow a saving throw... Though I may need to create exceptions for those that create a persistent area. Don't want to just up and negate like... walls of flame or blade barriers, etc.) --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] ([[User talk:Ghostwheel|talk]]) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Reflex saves? Sure. You could even let them use it against any effect that they entered during the round, but not any that they began on top of. Then you could shield charge through a blade barrier or a field of fire or whatever, but would still have to save normally if it were cast on top of you (wall of fire doesn't offer a save though, and so doesn't apply).
 +
 
 +
:Fort and Will saves are harder sells, and I don't think they should be blocked by a shield. You could expand the ranged touch line to include non-damaging effects if you wanted, possibly by declaring that the spell affected the shield instead of yourself. So a poisoned or dimensionally anchored shield instead of yourself (which you can then drop if necessary). - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] <sup>[[User talk:Tarkisflux|Talk]]</sup>  06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:37, 8 May 2014

Ratings[edit]

RatedLike.png Foxwarrior likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
I'm not sure if it's balanced at all, but it's certainly interesting. You should try it and tell us if it breaks the game.
RatedLike.png Havvy likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
Shields offer active defense instead of passive defense which should make the fight look more realistic where everybody sees that shields are being used instead of treated like an accessory.

This is also a huge defensive buff for meleers should they sacrifice a large amount of offensive damage or get an animated shield.

More meaningful choices is good.


Shields and Spells[edit]

Should shields be able to block all spells? (Of course, mean the ones that allow a saving throw... Though I may need to create exceptions for those that create a persistent area. Don't want to just up and negate like... walls of flame or blade barriers, etc.) --Ghostwheel (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Reflex saves? Sure. You could even let them use it against any effect that they entered during the round, but not any that they began on top of. Then you could shield charge through a blade barrier or a field of fire or whatever, but would still have to save normally if it were cast on top of you (wall of fire doesn't offer a save though, and so doesn't apply).
Fort and Will saves are harder sells, and I don't think they should be blocked by a shield. You could expand the ranged touch line to include non-damaging effects if you wanted, possibly by declaring that the spell affected the shield instead of yourself. So a poisoned or dimensionally anchored shield instead of yourself (which you can then drop if necessary). - Tarkisflux Talk 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
LikedFoxwarrior + and Havvy +