Suggestion thread: Shields

[Soulmojo]

Hello!

 

I've always felt in pillars 1 that shields are not good enough than they should be.

 

Meaning in the first game they were purely defensive, with the exception of some shields with bashing enchantment...and that enchant was lagging behind more and more as the game progressed.

 

Shields are as much an offensive tool as it is defensive and I feel the need to share how I would design shields as a combat tool.

(In the hopes that it gets picked up ofc, one can dream :D )

 

So shields:

 

Damage, attack speed and recovery and defense:

Each shield have damage stat, attack speed and recovery time based on current melee weapons.

The accuracy penalty would ofc remain on medium and large shields. 

This is to display the clumsyness of using these kind of shields and would reduce the accuracy of shield attacks.

 

Small shield:

Fast weapon stat set (fast attack, 2 sec recovery, fast weapon damage)

damage type: crush

 

Medium and large shield:
Large 1 handed weapon stat set (average attack, 3 sec recovery, large one handed damage)

damage type: crush

 

• Each shield gets damage, accuracy and penetration bonus too each quality level.
• Does not benefit from dual wield passives, does not get the dual wield attack speed bonus.
• Gets full combat benefit from stats and other triggered combat bonuses.
• Shield attack also triggered on ’full attack’ abilities as weapon attacks.

 

Small shield modal:

every successful attack have a chance to trigger an additional main hand weapon attack with reduced accuracy

Medium shield modal:

Critical hits with a shield daze or stagger the enemy  

Large shield modal:

Successful attacks with a shield have a chance to knock the enemy prone

 

The one tricky thing is when you use pistols and a shield or when you don’t want to attack with the shield. I thought that attacking baseline could be turned on or off by activating the modal of the shield.

 

This way if you want to use an offensive oriented (enchanted) shield you turn the modal on and attack, If you want to just defend or use the shield from range then you turn it off and enjoy the defensive bonuses.

 

What do you think? Please be critical, I’m ready for it.

 

#edit#

 

This I left out from my original post:

Shields will need access to offensive enchants like lash damage damage+accuracy bonus/quality level and such.

We don't know yet how enchanting will work in the game, but I figured from weapon stats in the beta that at least quality level bonus will be similar to PoE1.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Soulmojo

[JerekKruger]

... with the exception of some shields with bashing enchantment...and that enchant was lagging behind more and more as the game progressed.

 

Actually outside of a small number of builds using either Badgradr's Barricade or Dragon's Maw the enchantment didn't just lag behind, it caused the character in question to do worse damage than they would have done using a non-bashing shield.

 

As for shields in general I'd agree that they're not where they should be. There's a reason that until the advent of full plate armour almost everyone who was expecting to fight in melee (and many who weren't) would armed themselves either with a shield or with a polearm, and dual wielding was incredibly rare. Yet going by PoE's mechanics you'd expect everyone to do the opposite.

[Soulmojo]

 

... with the exception of some shields with bashing enchantment...and that enchant was lagging behind more and more as the game progressed.

 

Actually outside of a small number of builds using either Badgradr's Barricade or Dragon's Maw the enchantment didn't just lag behind, it caused the character in question to do worse damage than they would have done using a non-bashing shield.

 

As for shields in general I'd agree that they're not where they should be. There's a reason that until the advent of full plate armour almost everyone who was expecting to fight in melee (and many who weren't) would armed themselves either with a shield or with a polearm, and dual wielding was incredibly rare. Yet going by PoE's mechanics you'd expect everyone to do the opposite.

 

 

Well even with full plate armor if I remember correctly the small shield - the buckler - remained in use for quite some time. 

And only amateurs would use shields only defensively in combat if not fighting in group formation.

You can knock your oponent to the ground, bash its body, have spikes on it or sharpen the shields metal edge in some parts.  I even heard somewhere about hooks used on shields against other shields...I don't think this last one was true though. 

All in all plenty of opportunities are there to attack with a shield.

[daven]

Shields need some more love!

 

I always use a sword and board full plate meat head fella. It's disappointing when the shields are no good.

 

Just make fighters like Protection Warriors in WoW dammit.

[ShakotanSolari]

I'm all for giving shields damage, if only so I can make a devoted with shield proficiency for that captain america build 

[JFutral]

I've always thought the penalties for using shields were too great and the extra deflection provided was barely nominal. Like traps, either improve them or eliminate them since there is currently no use for them.

 

Joe

[Wormerine]

Shields are no good? Why did no one tell me that before!

[dunehunter]

I like the idea of considering shield as a weapon. Make it work like a hatchet sounds good. Just give it more deflection and less damage.

 

But no pistol/shield plz, that is so weird

Edited January 16, 2018 by dunehunter

[Soulmojo]

Shields are no good? Why did no one tell me that before! 

 

 

Maybe because dual wield and 2handed weapons were so much better during the game so everyone dismissed them outhright?

I remember when I equipped Larder Door for the first time. I was like wow now I can attack with shield and little later, why am I so bad?

I looked how shield attack and shield damage was and I laughed while I put that shield into my stash. From then on I never even equipped shield with bash and little later shields alltogether.

Since the game is wired the way that even with 30+ deflection the enemy can hit you with a lucky roll and shields cannot be offensive weapons there is really no reason to equip shields.

My rock bottom was with Kana defensive shield build where he had like 138+ deflection and he still got hit by random enemies attacks (no level scaling btw). 

 

But no pistol/shield plz, that is so weird   

 

 

Well, it's in the game, very steampunk!

[JerekKruger]

Shields are no good? Why did no one tell me that before!

 

Shields are useful for classes who intend to do no weapon damage (casters, Chanter tanks, some Paladins) as you're not really losing anything by using them. They're also good when they provide something beyond the standard Deflection bonus e.g. the Outworn Buckler's +5 to all defences aura.

 

However for, say, Fighters there's basically no point using a shield. Even if you intend to primarily tank you're probably better off with a two-hander or dual wielding.

[Soulmojo]

 

Shields are no good? Why did no one tell me that before!

 

Shields are useful for classes who intend to do no weapon damage (casters, Chanter tanks, some Paladins) as you're not really losing anything by using them. They're also good when they provide something beyond the standard Deflection bonus e.g. the Outworn Buckler's +5 to all defences aura.

 

However for, say, Fighters there's basically no point using a shield. Even if you intend to primarily tank you're probably better off with a two-hander or dual wielding.

 

 

 

Well I have to add that even for casters it dubious to be worth it. Medium and large shield accuracy penalty applies to all spells casted not just melee attacks. I always equipped a ranged weapon of somekind instead. Mostly gunns since it did not required a lot of accuracy to do good damage.

 

Hirawitas was pistol

Grieving mother was arquebus or twin sting

Durance was arquebus (obviously :D )

Aloth was wand and pistol

 

I equipped only Kana with shield, but that was only because he needed to be in the center of battle to heal and use his chants and invocations and he was the number one target for some reason.

All other character(including mine) was either dual wield or two handed.

I had a playthrough with an Eothas priest which I never finished, where I was flail+shield, but I was strongly hesitating to keep him that way due to him being eaten alive despite the shield and doing unnoticeable damage.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Soulmojo

[JerekKruger]

Yeah if you are going to equip casters with shields they should be small shields (one should eventually carry Little Savior for the aura, which stacks with Outworn Buckler and, in fact, stacks with a cloned Little Savior or Outworn Buckler if you use the Helwax Mold). Larger Shields are almost solely the preserve of tanky Chanters.

[JFutral]

I never understood the ACC penalty. Maybe attack speed, but not ACC. Or at least not for a fighter.

 

Joe

[ShakotanSolari]

I never understood the ACC penalty. Maybe attack speed, but not ACC. Or at least not for a fighter.

 

Joe

Makes sense from a historical perspective. A medium or large shield can greatly reduce visibility and potential angle of attack, consequently an opponent that positions himself on your shield side will be harder to strike at as you need to swing past your shield, or drop your shield out of the way. 

[JerekKruger]

Makes sense from a historical perspective. A medium or large shield can greatly reduce visibility and potential angle of attack, consequently an opponent that positions himself on your shield side will be harder to strike at as you need to swing past your shield, or drop your shield out of the way. 

 

This video demonstrates, at least to me, why this isn't true of medium shields.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Interesting video. Medium shields can be used to hit people on the collar bone by the neck, then press it onto the upper torso of your enemy, effectively locking his sword out of the way, while you get to thrust your enemy with a sword, for instance. And that shield knob, now I get what it's for.

Edited January 16, 2018 by IndiraLightfoot

[JFutral]

Very cool video.

 

Joe

[SaruNi]

 

 

... with the exception of some shields with bashing enchantment...and that enchant was lagging behind more and more as the game progressed.

 

Actually outside of a small number of builds using either Badgradr's Barricade or Dragon's Maw the enchantment didn't just lag behind, it caused the character in question to do worse damage than they would have done using a non-bashing shield.

 

As for shields in general I'd agree that they're not where they should be. There's a reason that until the advent of full plate armour almost everyone who was expecting to fight in melee (and many who weren't) would armed themselves either with a shield or with a polearm, and dual wielding was incredibly rare. Yet going by PoE's mechanics you'd expect everyone to do the opposite.

 

 

Well even with full plate armor if I remember correctly the small shield - the buckler - remained in use for quite some time. 

And only amateurs would use shields only defensively in combat if not fighting in group formation.

You can knock your oponent to the ground, bash its body, have spikes on it or sharpen the shields metal edge in some parts.  I even heard somewhere about hooks used on shields against other shields...I don't think this last one was true though. 

All in all plenty of opportunities are there to attack with a shield.

 

 

A shield with spikes would be cool. Either for retaliation or attacking with it....

[ShakotanSolari]

Well even with full plate armor if I remember correctly the small shield - the buckler - remained in use for quite some time. 

And only amateurs would use shields only defensively in combat if not fighting in group formation.

You can knock your oponent to the ground, bash its body, have spikes on it or sharpen the shields metal edge in some parts.  I even heard somewhere about hooks used on shields against other shields...I don't think this last one was true though. 

All in all plenty of opportunities are there to attack with a shield.

 

 

The buckler was primarily used by archers or civilians who wanted some form of self defense, or really anyone who couldn't lug a larger shield around with them. It was also used extensively in duels apparently, for whatever reason.

 

As for shields being used by amateurs - quite the opposite, professional soldiers were really the only people who widely used shields in most cases because of the reasons mentioned above - a shield is a very cumbersome thing to carry around so unless you're headed towards a battlefield you wouldn't really want to carry one around with you. Also being caught on a battlefield without a shield is not a very good thing because, unfortunately for the poor soldier, arrows exist.

 

There are definitely many instances of of spiked bucklers that appear in historical manuscripts, but most of the time these spikes are meant to catch or trap an opponents blade (some appear to be more geared towards striking). I don't think I've seen many full-sized spiked shields, but a lot of shields historically had a metal boss in the centre which served the same function. The video posted by Jerek shows some great examples of this. I don't know about hooks on shields, I can imagine that would make it just as easy for an opponent to use against you, but I can see the benefit, the ability to pull your opponent's shield out of the way is one of the big strengths of wielding an axe or half-swording.

 

 

 

Makes sense from a historical perspective. A medium or large shield can greatly reduce visibility and potential angle of attack, consequently an opponent that positions himself on your shield side will be harder to strike at as you need to swing past your shield, or drop your shield out of the way. 

 

This video demonstrates, at least to me, why this isn't true of medium shields.

 

This a great video, some very informational stuff and I'm glad you posted it here! I must say though, that I don't think it really addresses the issue in question - the ability to hit someone with your sword when you are holding a shield versus the ability to hit someone with your sword when you are not holding a shield. Put simply - there is many more things you can do with the sword when you have a free hand. Keep in mind that the video also only deals with center-grip shields and many of the techniques demonstrated simply aren't possible with strapped shields.

 

One interesting thing I'd like to point out in the video is around 16:00 when they begin the small sparring demonstration. You can see that the one fighter is able to maneuver himself to the other fighter's side and push his shield in front of his face while chopping at his legs. In this case, the fighter being controlled is simply unable to attack because his own shield is being used against him, he can not strike past it and he can not see his opponents attacks coming to his legs because, again, he cannot see past his own shield, this is an example of what I was trying to say in my first post.

[JerekKruger]

This a great video, some very informational stuff and I'm glad you posted it here! I must say though, that I don't think it really addresses the issue in question - the ability to hit someone with your sword when you are holding a shield versus the ability to hit someone with your sword when you are not holding a shield. Put simply - there is many more things you can do with the sword when you have a free hand. Keep in mind that the video also only deals with center-grip shields and many of the techniques demonstrated simply aren't possible with strapped shields.

 

Well my thinking is that the shield opens up opportunities to attack and allows you to control your opponent in ways that otherwise wouldn't be possible. You're right that there are things that can be done when you have a free hand of course, but Pillars already gives an accuracy bonus to wielding a single one-handed weapon so I don't see why shields should get a penalty to accuracy (perhaps large shields should, but not medium and small).

 

One interesting thing I'd like to point out in the video is around 16:00 when they begin the small sparring demonstration. You can see that the one fighter is able to maneuver himself to the other fighter's side and push his shield in front of his face while chopping at his legs. In this case, the fighter being controlled is simply unable to attack because his own shield is being used against him, he can not strike past it and he can not see his opponents attacks coming to his legs because, again, he cannot see past his own shield, this is an example of what I was trying to say in my first post.

 

 

Perhaps the way this could be represented would be to leave the penalty to Accuracy in, but have it removed with shield proficiency (since the character would know about this sort of tactic and counter/avoid it). Of course this would require a completely different proficiency system to the current one (which would be fine by me).

[Madscientist]

I did some thinking and I came up with an idea:

 

Shields need to be more different.

Using a shield normally changes nothing, but if you are profient with shields each shield gives a unique bonus.

- some shields keep the modals they have now

- some shields are used as bashing weapon that cause low damage but can cause another effect, like distracted

-some shields have a very aggressive mode: There is a spiked shield and if you activate the modal, it does damage like a normal weapon and causes bleed on hit, but it gives a defense penalty instead of a bonus. So by turning on/of the modal you can chose if you want to more defense or more offense

- some shields get a per encounter ability with a few charges, like one shied can interrupt enemies 3 times per encounter while another shield can confuse an enemy once per encounter. The effects, damage and amount of charges is different from shield to shield

- some shields simply get a bigger defense bonus if you are profient

- some shields may have shield bash by default, being profient adds damage or gives an additional effect

- There is an epic soulbound fire shield. (being profient increases damage and defense)

    + Initial state: the shield glows, you can bash with it and it gives you minor ice resistance

    + first upgrade: increases bash damage, additional fire damage on hit, medium ice resistance

    + final upgrade: every time ( or a % chance) you land a critical hit with the shield you create a fireball that causes fire damage to all enemies around you. You also get 3 per rest charges of the spells fireball and fireshield.

 

I want to have a devoted/paladin that is devoted to shields!

In one hand you have the soulbound fire shield, in the other hand the spike shield. Activate disciplined strikes plus eternal devotion and you are a moving fireball that burns and bleeds everything around him while having a good defense.

A char who specializes on using weapons might have bigger damage against the target in front of him, but you have better defense and you burn everyone around you.

 

Of course this means that you should be able to dual wield shields.

 

Edit: Changed bonusses of the final upgrade of the soulbound shield.

When reading this I like my idea so much that I wish I backed the "design a soulbound item" tier. ( . . . basking in my own ego    . . . )

Edited January 17, 2018 by Madscientist

[ShakotanSolari]

Well my thinking is that the shield opens up opportunities to attack and allows you to control your opponent in ways that otherwise wouldn't be possible. You're right that there are things that can be done when you have a free hand of course, but Pillars already gives an accuracy bonus to wielding a single one-handed weapon so I don't see why shields should get a penalty to accuracy (perhaps large shields should, but not medium and small).

The shield certainly does open up some avenues of attack, but it also closes others. I agree that the existence of both an accuracy bonus for a single weapon and the penalty for shields do seem to be a bit of a contradiction by this logic - surely only one of these needs to exist, I think dropping the shield penalty makes the most sense both logically and in terms of game balance.

 

Perhaps the way this could be represented would be to leave the penalty to Accuracy in, but have it removed with shield proficiency (since the character would know about this sort of tactic and counter/avoid it). Of course this would require a completely different proficiency system to the current one (which would be fine by me).

 

Personally I would love to see a new proficiency system (or at the very least, better modals). I really dislike the way this is currently implemented.

 

 

Back onto the broader topic of the thread, because I do so love talking about shields and a thought has just occurred to me, I very much disagree with the way shields are represented in Pillars (and indeed most rpg's). Shields in Pillars really just function as another set of armor, but shields are not armor. They are defensive weapons (there's a reason they go in the WEAPON SLOT). The key difference being that armor is passive - you put it on and it does it's job, that's it, whereas weapons require the wielder to actively engage with them. As we've seen in the video and as has been pointed out by many here in the thread, shields are not passive, they must be actively manipulated by the wielder and can contribute as much to the wielder's offense as they can to his/her defense. Adding some kind of damage quality to shields would certainly help to rectify this and, who knows, could maybe even be the first step in changing the currently very-flawed perception of shields in modern rpg's. Come on Obsidian, take that step, change rpg's for the better!

 

 

 

 

P.S. Actually lets just go all the way and add dueling shields as a weapon class. God I love dueling shields

Edited January 17, 2018 by ShakotanSolari

[Soulmojo]

About amateours I meant those who never used or saw real combat.

 

 

Also lets not kid ourselves about the vision of professional medieval warrior. Until the 15th century with the rise of ottomans and decade long wars, most warriors were drafted at the age of 14-15 and received some very very basic training in one 1 handed weapon and shield or in some polearm and went to battle to die.

Ofc there were numerous warrior societies thoughout the ages, but there were no standing armies and certanly no professional training. 

After the division of the Roman empire professionalism was on a serious decline as the classical legion was replaces by drafted conscripts from local areas, and it was all washed away by the migration of germanic tribes, the goths the visigots the vandals the longobards the saxons etc. from then on tribal warfare was dominant for centuries in large areas. Even with the rise of the franks and the introduction of medieval society there was only a very small caste of warriors who received training of anykind usually nobles who fought from horses and some monastic order members.

What you are talking about is post renesaince - late medieval times.

 

+ you are seriously mistaken about the small shield. 

in classical era for example greek pikemen (macedons, later selucids) used small shield as an addition to their pikes to protect themselves in formation.

Light armored units like slavic guerilla fighters used small shields spears and no armor

Slingers in the classical era used small shields.

and I could continue the list but whats the point....

 

And realisticly battles were fought like this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see shield combat and armored combat in general was more like bashing the head with a shield or its throat because despite the helm and neck guard it was one of the weakest points of full plate armor.

Secondly in the previous linked video what they show is not realistic, real combat is not about sublety or beauty or cunning techniques, it is all about unbalance the enemy as fast as you can and bash him to death.

Focus on your gazes of the third video, you can see everything about shield combat.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Soulmojo

[JerekKruger]

IMCF really isn't a good representation of medieval combat. Their weapons aren't lethal (for obvious reasons) but this results in them acting in ways you simply wouldn't when your opponent is armed with a lethal weapon (and actually wants to kill you).

 

The video of Warzecha represents a duel. This is a completely different situation to a massed melee. Of course your aim is still to put your opponent out of action as quickly and efficiently as possible but to suggest this involves no cunning or subtlety (who cares about beauty?) is simply wrong. Watch a boxing match with an untrained eye and you could be forgiven for thinking it's just two guys punching each other until one gets knocked out, but anyone who knows a bit about boxing can see the tremendous skill involved.

 

Your comments on the state of soldiers in the middle ages, whilst certainly true in some cases, are simply wrong in many cases.

Edited January 17, 2018 by JerekKruger

[Soulmojo]

IMCF really isn't a good representation of medieval combat. Their weapons aren't lethal (for obvious reasons) but this results in them acting in ways you simply wouldn't when your opponent is armed with a lethal weapon (and actually wants to kill you).

 

You are mistaken. Because they fight with blunted weapons they give everything into each blow. Secondly many competitors fight with clubs, warhammers, maces, all blunt weapons and they don't pull back. Realistically if there were no observers to stop contenders, they would very likely kill each other.

Secondly if you are wearing armor the first you have to learn is the armor actually protects you plus these armors are not some low qualiry garbage, they are hand crafted by experienced armorsmiths. All high qualty. estocs, longswords and blunt weapons evolved for a reason, all effective armor piercing. You cannot do much with a battleaxe or slashing sword agains a full plate armor.

 

If that is not enough for you then think what you want. 

 

Your comments on the state of soldiers in the middle ages, whilst certainly true in some cases, are simply wrong in many cases.

 

Yeah sure. You have all the information bro... whatever I'm done arguing this. Lets get back topic.

Edited January 17, 2018 by Soulmojo