perhaps your weapon set is locked in once you make your full attack (all attacks granted to you by your X Extra Attacks, including Haste actions) you could only get 1 free weapon swap per turn, preventing you from always switching to a shield-weaponset at the end of your turn swapping to a shield could take a bonus action Shields should only provide +2 AC when wielded.īut if we want to reduce that penalty a bit, one of the following might be appropriate: To prevent a free shield bonus in BG3 (which, imo, is the real problem of the free unlimited weapon swapping), the RAW solution is to make switching to/from a shield should require an action. But if you continue this line of thought: as it requires no skill to strap a shield on your back, why does it even require proficiency? Why can't any random schmuck do this? Essentially we've just increased every creature's AC by 2. ![]() Otherwise, if shields provided +2 AC while strapped on your back, then every class with shield proficiency would be able to always get +2 AC. There's an entire feat representing that training (just as there is a feat you can take to get proficiency in Shields). Dual Wielding doesn't naturally provide any AC because you haven't trained to do so. Thus, a shield only provides +2 AC when actively equipped, being used to block attacks. You are considered to always be looking and spinning around, facing enemies that attack you. Though, as per the point about attacks of opportunity you made, we have another incentive there to do the boring busy-work anyway. But then, if you can always freely swap back to your shield at the end of the turn anyway (as long as you have one already equipped) that just means that we are incentivised switch back every time to get that benefit, so giving us the AC bonus regardless is just saving us boring busy-work. The ruleset is of course necessarily stylised rather than always what makes sense, and I actually think that, though yes probably someone would get some defensive bonus from having a shield on their back, that should be ignored for the sake of simplicity and shield bonuses only apply when shields are equipped. ![]() ![]() I agree, and I wasn't actually advocating for a reduced AC bonus when wearing a shield, just saying I can see an argument for. Shouldnt we start giving same (or at least simmilar) deffensive bonus to Dual Wielding weapons? I mean, parrying daggers are a thing. I mean, if we start thinking about if Shield wielded in hand should provide additional AC, bcs his defensive atributes (for lack of better therm in my voabulary) are without a doubt better. but this is problem with ruleset itself, isnt it? But it doesn’t feel at all the same as wielding one, with the flexibility to move the shield to catch and block attacks that you can see coming.Indeed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |