Armor Up - Developer Diary #2

[Scrabbler]

Single-weapon fighting exists specifically to describe those things that are not TWF or THF.

By that definition, SWF would apply to Heavy Repeating Crossbows and so forth.

The truth is that the "Single Weapon Fighting" feats are misnamed; what they really mean is Single Handed Melee, where you have a weapon in your right hand and your left hand has nothing to do with melee. By choosing the wrong name for the feat series, the developers got some players confused about how it should work.

Sword and board is exactly single-weapon fighting with a shield for some purpose in the off hand.

By that definition, anyone could build a level 1 character who wields a Longsword and Heavy Shield while benefiting from the SWF feat. But that's not what it means.

Shield use is an entirely different skill and gaining the most effective use of the shield similarly requires training. If a player wants both for their character they should reasonably be expected to take both feat lines separately.

It would be bad for the game if S&B style is a 6-feat investment while TWF, THF, and SWF are all 3-feat investments.

• It is an important design goal that fighting with a shield be a reasonable choice, and fighting S&B should not be entirely dependent upon having the Vanguard tree from Fighter or Paladin. Therefore there must be feats available to transform S&B from a bad choice to a good choice.
  
  
• Given that 3 feats is enough to change TWF or SWF from a bad choice into a good choice, 3 feats should also suffice to make S&B into a good choice. That is especially important because one of the classes intended to use S&B has 11 bonus feats, while the others have none. Spending 3 more feats to get GSWF alongside S&B style is easy for a Fighter, but really rough on a Paladin, Cleric, Favored Soul, or Sorcerer.
  
  
• If the updated Shield Mastery and Shield Bashing feats are made strong enough so that they're a good choice on their own, then it will be overpowered to allow SWF to work too. Alternatively, if the updated Shield Mastery and Shield Bashing feats are so weak that they need SWF to make them worthwhile, then the feat cost will be unfair compared to TWF, THF, and real SWF.

[Failedlegend]

Look you are NOT going to be allowed to use SWF and the Shield line so stop asking, and no it's not "confusing"

Use S&B - Take shield line
Use a single weapon - take single weapon line
use 2 hands - take THF
Use Two weapons - Take TWF

I really don't see how it can get simpler than that, the only confusion I see is when it comes to throwing weapons which could be assumed to work with SWF especially since Swashbuckler has some bonuses here.

That said I understand that any build can benefit from PTWF's double strike...please fix this either requiring GTWF or only apply when the two weapons are equipped.

Lastly can we get ranged consolidated into 3 feats as well currently it takes a lot of feats

Bows: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Manyshot, Bow Strength (6 feats)
Repeaters: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Reload (5 feats)
Thrown: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Quick Draw (5 Feats)


Bow Strength - Remove this, have Bows have this ability naturally
PBS- Make this a thing that just happens when within 30ft (and possibly change it to x% damage instead of just +1)
Precise - Again this should just happen...you don't see melee's not hitting enemies because an ally is nearby, of course remove the pointless archer's focus effect.
Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload & Quick Draw - Make this one feat let's call it "Quick Hands"
Many shot and 10-thousand stars - These should be anti-requisites of each other.
Manyshot - IPS should be a pre-requisite (all other pre-reqs removed) and instead of it being burst DPS it should grant bonus doubleshot whenever you hit multiple enemies with a single shot <insert standard stacks x times, up to x for x seconds here> I'd say have x = Dex mod
10k Stars - Same as Manyshot except X = Wisdom.
IPS - I'd say rename this to Piercing Shot in describes it's effect beter and is less confusing with precise shot removed
Note - Possibly work in an enhancement for rogue mechs and Arty B-Engineers to use x = Int for Manyshot.

Bows: Quick hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Repeaters: Piercing shot, Quick Hands (2 feats)
Thrown: Piercing shot, Quick Hands (2 Feats)

Unfortunately this leaves Thrown weapons & repeaters with needing only 2 feats (3 if you need the weapon prof) so to be consistent something else needs to be added I'd say just allow my new version of Manyshot to work all ranged styles.

Bows: Quick hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Repeaters: Quick Hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Thrown: Quick Hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot or 10k-stars (3 Feats)

Now it's 3 feats a piece and all feats function with all ranged styles...no need to worry about which feat works with which.

There is also the option of making it Regular X, Improved X, Greater X for each style (Repeaters, Bows and Thrown) but that would take alot more work I'm guessing.

Lastly ranged feats dex/BAB requirements are ridiculous. I'd say bring them in line with TWF,ITWF and GTWF

Quickhands = Dexterity 15, no BAB/feat req
Piercing shot = Dexterity 17, Base attack bonus of 6 or higher, Quick hands.
Manyshot = Dexterity 17, base attack bonus of 11 or higher, Piercing shot.

[Monkey_Archer]

Lastly can we get ranged consolidated into 3 feats as well currently it takes a lot of feats

Bows: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Manyshot, Bow Strength (6 feats)
Repeaters: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Reload, Exotic Weapon Prof (6 feats)
Thrown: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Quick Draw (5 Feats)

*snip*

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. PBS, Rapid Shot and Quickdraw/reload/Bow strength represent the ranged fighting style and thats only 3 feats, just like every other combat style. Precise shot could be thought of as Power attack for ranged (increased damage for a penalty). Improved precise shot is basically the ranged equivalent of cleave with no cooldown. Manyshot is... um... lets pretend its only as good as greatcleave...

So unless you also want PA, cleave and greatcleave added to the melee combat styles, I see no reason why ranged should get their 6 feats consolidated into 3, when melee still actually have 6.

[Failedlegend]

Uhh...no you NEED precise shot to hit anything...it's got nothing to do with dealing more damage...without it your shots literrally jusy bounce off your allies....as I said as a melee my attacks don't bounce off my allies just because their nearby.

Precise Shot: Your targeted ranged attacks will now pass through friends and foes alike, to strike your target. (No damage will be done other than to your target.)

As for Manyshot please read more than my first paragraph to understand. I make my posts detailed for a reason.

Lastly how is IPS a cleave? All it does is give ranged weapons the ability to hit more than one enemy which all 3 melee styles can also already do with their basic attack w/o any feats...seeing a pattern here....Melees can already do these things where-as ranged needs to take feats just to function.

[Scrabbler]

Lastly how is IPS a cleave? All it does is give ranged weapons the ability to hit more than one enemy which all 3 melee styles can also already do with their basic attack w/o any feats

A regular melee attack cannot hit more than one enemy, unless you add something special like Cleave or Defensive Sweep. (Glancing Blows aren't equivalent either, as they're a special function of THF and they have greatly reduced damage)

[Grailhawk]

It is an important design goal that fighting with a shield be a reasonable choice, and fighting S&B should not be entirely dependent upon having the Vanguard tree from Fighter or Paladin. Therefore there must be feats available to transform S&B from a bad choice to a good choice.

If Vanguard is the only way to get good DPS out of S&B there is nothing wrong with that S&B should be the go to defensive style of play. If the only way to get Good DPS out of a defensive style is a nitche build that's fine. The S&B feat should offer more defensive options then offensive.

[Scrabbler]

The S&B feat should offer more defensive options then offensive.

That's an interesting possibility, and maybe it could be good, but it does not seem like the devs are pushing shield feats enough in that direction.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the PPR+MRR from holding a shield will be more valuable than I predict. Currently for a melee guy, in a party, to decide to use a shield instead of something that raises his DPS is usually a mistake, even if the shield gave him personal defense.

[Grailhawk]

That's an interesting possibility, and maybe it could be good, but it does not seem like the devs are pushing shield feats enough in that direction.

Unfortunately I think you are right on with that assessment. Too much talk about Shield Bashes, I'm still hopeful that they go the defensive route with S&B.

[Zurrander]

I Agree completely. S&B should give more defensive benefits than offensive (though some offense is appreciated). But for now I'm quite happy with the look of Update 23 (not perfectly happy, but to do that you'd have to upset someone else, and then it would never end). Now I just need to get a Look this new Vanguard tree so that I can die happy! BTW if any Devs are reading this, Try to fit some AC & Dodge into the vanguard tree. And maybe some intimidate too... (and of course a little of that delicious low hanging fruit just in case its not worth getting to T4.)

[Nodoze]

I Agree completely. S&B should give more defensive benefits than offensive (though some offense is appreciated). But for now I'm quite happy with the look of Update 23 (not perfectly happy, but to do that you'd have to upset someone else, and then it would never end). Now I just need to get a Look this new Vanguard tree so that I can die happy! BTW if any Devs are reading this, Try to fit some AC & Dodge into the vanguard tree. And maybe some intimidate too... (and of course a little of that delicious low hanging fruit just in case its not worth getting to T4.)

Overall I agree with a defensive boosts but there should be some offense in there to allow them to maintain aggro... For example I like the idea of the extra doublestrike for S&B that is currently in some of the S&B feats as it should help maintain aggro with reasonable hate magnification...

[Zurrander]

Overall I agree with a defensive boosts but there should be some offense in there to allow them to maintain aggro... For example I like the idea of the extra doublestrike for S&B that is currently in some of the S&B feats as it should help maintain aggro with reasonable hate magnification...

Now that i Think about it, If aggro is more important than Damage (as it often is for me) then they should Add +40% Hate to each Shield Mastery (on top of the double strike). That would go a long way with helping tanks manage aggro (assuming it stacks with everything) and give Non-tanks a reason to stay away form the Tank feats. I can't imagine a Swashbuckler wanting +80% aggro on top of all the damage they already do (especially when the up side is only 5 PRR & 8% double strike). This should ring even more true with the changes that make attacking a mob aggro other mobs close to them (that does work for melee too right?). So there we go, the Shield Feats would become more "Tanky" and Single Weapon fighters would have to accept some trade offs to taking them (though i don't feel that Single Weapon + Shield Master is a big deal, since Swash Bucklers are already pretty Feat Starved)

[Nodoze]

Now that i Think about it, If aggro is more important than Damage (as it often is for me) then they should Add +40% Hate to each Shield Mastery (on top of the double strike). That would go a long way with helping tanks manage aggro (assuming it stacks with everything) and give Non-tanks a reason to stay away form the Tank feats. I can't imagine a Swashbuckler wanting +80% aggro on top of all the damage they already do (especially when the up side is only 5 PRR & 8% double strike). This should ring even more true with the changes that make attacking a mob aggro other mobs close to them (that does work for melee too right?). So there we go, the Shield Feats would become more "Tanky" and Single Weapon fighters would have to accept some trade offs to taking them (though i don't feel that Single Weapon + Shield Master is a big deal, since Swash Bucklers are already pretty Feat Starved)

Interesting idea.

[Therigar]

Look you are NOT going to be allowed to use SWF and the Shield line so stop asking

I think someone on the Player's Council is a little too big for his britches. This is an exceptionally rude and unnecessary thing to say.

There seems to be an arrogance that only some people have enough knowledge to be useful members of the community and to merit expressing an opinion. That is an unfortunate thing as it denigrates the vast majority of the game's players -- all of whom make the game possible by their participation.

Having come into the discussion late, I am especially cognizant that allowing SWF and Shield to work concurrently is not the direction the developers want to take the game. And, after reading this response by a member of the Council it is obvious that the Council has an agenda that they desire to push -- irrespective of the thoughts of the other community members and deliberately ignorant of the impact on players who do not participate in the forums but only play the game.

SWF and Shield feats should not be mutually exclusive. They should work together to some degree. A character, at the very least, should be able to have all feats and use either feat line depending on the circumstance. But, even that is less than what makes sense.

It is my perception that the Player's Council is made up primarily of players who have "arrived" -- that is, players who have available the most powerful builds in the game. They are out of touch with the "normal" players who only dream about having such characters. SWF with Shield threatens the status quo -- that is, it threatens them. It does have the potential to unseat the current power builds.

But, that is not bad. Having played this game from almost the start I can remember many, many builds that have come and gone. That is the natural order of things. But, to have a Council member make such a statement as this indicates that the Council does not understand the players that they are intended to represent. We are not children to be told "stop asking." To the contrary, some of us are likely older than Failedlegend's own parents and being dismissed as children is reason enough to request that he (she?) be removed from the Council for their arrogance and inability to demonstrate respect for the community.

On the developer side, I understand that once a development decision is made it becomes difficult to reverse course. If, in designing Shield feats, offensive bonuses were added for using a shield that was ill conceived and a poor decision. The error lies with the developers and not with the players. The solution is not to prohibit SWF and Shield feats from working together but to rectify the development decision that enables Shield feats to increase offensive power.

I recognize that developers do not need to know anything about D&D or about the real world that gives rise to the fantasy behind D&D. But, someone should. It is obvious that neither they, the project managers nor the Player's Council have the background to do anything but read rulebooks and kluge game solutions to produce effects.

In history shields were an important piece of military equipment and yet were not developed in many cultures. The equivalent of D&D tower shields were very unwieldy and tactically provided defensive protection and necessitated a complete reworking of combat methods to work around their bulk. The best classical example is the hoplon which Greeks essentially hid behind in a mass while thrusting their spears overhand above the wall.

This proved to be problematic in single combats and in rough or difficult terrain so the Greeks developed a smaller, lighter shield -- what in DDO would be the equivalent of a large shield. In Macedonia the degradation of defensive protection resulted in the lengthening of the spear -- in massed formations the pike phalanx became an unbeatable force on open ground.

Yet, the Romans beat the Macedonian successors and Greek city-states that adopted the Macedonian pike doctrines with regularity. The Romans did so with similarly sized large shield and specially developed sword techniques that allowed them to operate on unfavorable ground. Exploiting breaks in the opposing lines they would use the shield to defend themselves from frontal attack while stabbing the man in front of their neighbor -- a D&D flank attack if you will.

Still, the Roman skill with large shields proved problematic in mounted combat (in an era before stirrups when cavalry was often little more than mounted infantry) and also in difficult terrain where combats were often more like individual combats taking place simultaneously across the front. Roman shields became smaller and lighter -- the equivalent of a D&D small shield. This allowed greater offense at reduced protection but compensated by allowing increased mobility and rewarded individual skill over the defensive posture of massed formations.

In each of these steps the move was to reduce defenses in order to increase offensive capability. DDO's Shield feats should reflect this -- perhaps even to the extent of being type specific rather than lumped in a single "Shield" feat line.

This is what I am saying should be done in DDO if you want to find the proper balance between SWF -- which, in spite of assertions by others is effectively a melee combat style where there is only 1 offensive MELEE weapon -- and Shield feats. There should be gradations of defensive power. As the defensive power declines then the offensive power should increase. With SWF (if a player is willing to invest in the feats) there should be some cumulative benefits as the character learns how to get the maximum synergy out of both shield and weapon.

The buckler is a special situation. It is, to begin with, nothing more than an extremely small shield. It was used almost as if the person, in D&D terms, was TWF. In medieval times sword and buckler was a very specialized combat technique and those who mastered it were considered to be elite soldiers. Intriguingly, sword and buckler was revived in the late medieval period as troops roughly analogous to modern Rangers. The defensive gradations should give nearly no defensive benefits but the offensive bonuses should be relatively large.

Now, should this SWF + Shield combination rival or surpass TWF or THF as a melee combat style? The answer, IMO, is yes provided the feat cost is high enough and the gear requirements are challenging enough. It might well be that in the current game the combination is too potent. I do not know, I do not have a character that rivals the top builds. But, in a real world situation it would be difficult to know which would be better, so all should have the opportunity. That is clearly so much NOT the case now that it would be better to permit the risk than to intentionally destroy the possibility.

I do know that in the current game for ordinary players the combination is not too powerful.

Will it be too powerful after the update because of changes in game mechanics and the move to offensive power, defensive power, and so on? I seriously do not think it will. Yes, there is a potential and yes, the players like our arrogant sounding Player Council member might build even more powerful characters. But so what?

Right now there is NO reason for a DPS oriented character to play S&B. Turbine gave us Swashbuckler and they failed -- as they do with everything -- to adequately assess the ways players would build. That is Turbine's fault not ours. If some players are willing to play bards -- a class that had almost nothing going for it except being marginally better hagglebots -- then what is the problem?

Stop SWF and Shield feats from either working together or even being allowed on a character and, in typical fashion, you over-react to a perception of a problem that does not really exist. Doing this is wrong -- as wrong as being told to stop asking that Turbine come to it senses.

[Therigar]

Use S&B - Take shield line
Use a single weapon - take single weapon line
use 2 hands - take THF
Use Two weapons - Take TWF

While simple to understand the problem is that SWF should provide the offensive boost in S&B while Shield should provide a defensive boost. The ignorance that permits shields to increase offensive abilities is the root of the problem.

The Player's Council should have recognized this immediately. TBH, the developers should have realized this immediately so that it never needed to be recognized by the PC.

In this case, as in most, multiple wrong decisions do not make things right.

[Therigar]

Lastly can we get ranged consolidated into 3 feats as well currently it takes a lot of feats

Bows: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Manyshot, Bow Strength (6 feats)
Repeaters: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Rapid Reload (5 feats)
Thrown: PBS, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Improved Precise Shot, Quick Draw (5 Feats)


Bow Strength - Remove this, have Bows have this ability naturally
PBS- Make this a thing that just happens when within 30ft (and possibly change it to x% damage instead of just +1)
Precise - Again this should just happen...you don't see melee's not hitting enemies because an ally is nearby, of course remove the pointless archer's focus effect.
Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload & Quick Draw - Make this one feat let's call it "Quick Hands"
Many shot and 10-thousand stars - These should be anti-requisites of each other.
Manyshot - IPS should be a pre-requisite (all other pre-reqs removed) and instead of it being burst DPS it should grant bonus doubleshot whenever you hit multiple enemies with a single shot <insert standard stacks x times, up to x for x seconds here> I'd say have x = Dex mod
10k Stars - Same as Manyshot except X = Wisdom.
IPS - I'd say rename this to Piercing Shot in describes it's effect beter and is less confusing with precise shot removed
Note - Possibly work in an enhancement for rogue mechs and Arty B-Engineers to use x = Int for Manyshot.

Bows: Quick hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Repeaters: Piercing shot, Quick Hands (2 feats)
Thrown: Piercing shot, Quick Hands (2 Feats)

Unfortunately this leaves Thrown weapons & repeaters with needing only 2 feats (3 if you need the weapon prof) so to be consistent something else needs to be added I'd say just allow my new version of Manyshot to work all ranged styles.

Bows: Quick hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Repeaters: Quick Hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot (3 feats)
Thrown: Quick Hands, Piercing shot, Manyshot or 10k-stars (3 Feats)

Now it's 3 feats a piece and all feats function with all ranged styles...no need to worry about which feat works with which.

There is also the option of making it Regular X, Improved X, Greater X for each style (Repeaters, Bows and Thrown) but that would take alot more work I'm guessing.

Lastly ranged feats dex/BAB requirements are ridiculous. I'd say bring them in line with TWF,ITWF and GTWF

Quickhands = Dexterity 15, no BAB/feat req
Piercing shot = Dexterity 17, Base attack bonus of 6 or higher, Quick hands.
Manyshot = Dexterity 17, base attack bonus of 11 or higher, Piercing shot.

Please, no!

The magnitude of why this is wrong makes the screw-up with SWF v Shield look like you just used 1 egg in the cupcakes instead of 2 -- it will cause almost no one to notice.

This ranged v melee thing will never go away. But reducing ranged feats and requirement will result in monster builds that can just do whatever the heck they need to do in whatever situation develops. Can you see a bladeforged fighter with racial repair, 10 normal feats from levels 1-28 (more when level cap goes up) and 11 added feats because they are a fighter? What happens when they monk & paladin splash for saves (losing only 2 feats due to splash but gaining so much in return). Complete ranged feat line, complete THF feat line, complete TWF feat line, complete SWF feat line, complete Shield feat line -- 12 feats out of 19 (or 21 if pure). Talk about game imbalance -- yes, let's have even more of that.

Right now there is a strong argument that ranged > melee. That's good enough. We do not all need to be like gods.

This is an absolutely horrible thought from start to finish -- no matter how pretty groups of 3 might be.

[Silverleafeon]

And, after reading this response by a member of the Council it is obvious that the Council has an agenda that they desire to push -- irrespective of the thoughts of the other community members and deliberately ignorant of the impact on players who do not participate in the forums but only play the game.

Cordovan and others deliberately chose a group of 30 players for the player's council who come from many DIFFERENT backgrounds and styles of play.

We do NOT agree with each other, much less group together to form any sort of agenda.

It is a lot of reading, and thinking, and much debate between ourselves.
A lot of the time, we are scrambling to keep up with the Devs and trying our best to help.
We are not paid for our time spent there, but we do it because we love the game and want it to improve.

I have the highest respect for the player base as a whole, and have no intention of siding against them.

[EllisDee37]

SWF and Shield feats should not be mutually exclusive. They should work together to some degree. A character, at the very least, should be able to have all feats and use either feat line depending on the circumstance. But, even that is less than what makes sense.

It is my perception that the Player's Council is made up primarily of players who have "arrived" -- that is, players who have available the most powerful builds in the game. They are out of touch with the "normal" players who only dream about having such characters. SWF with Shield threatens the status quo -- that is, it threatens them. It does have the potential to unseat the current power builds.

I am not on the Player's Council, nor do I run particularly strong builds.

My opinion is that SWF and Shield feats should remain mutually exclusive, or become so if they are not currently.

I only post this to give you an example of a dissenting opinion from yours that comes from a player who does not fit the profile you have created for those who disagree with you.

[Failedlegend]

Cordovan and others deliberately chose a group of 30 players for the player's council who come from many DIFFERENT backgrounds and styles of play.

We do NOT agree with each other, much less group together to form any sort of agenda.

Indeed some threads have gone 10+ pages due to varied opinions and playstyles...I can assure you there's no conspiracy.

That said there's no reason to allow both SWF and shields to work together, this would make S&B fighting hands down the most powerful especially for fighters. Also you can't single weapon fight whilst holding a shield for the same reason you can't TWF whilst THF'ing even if you can theoretically hold two weapon with both hands at the same time.

As for the ranged feats I fail to see why ranged should require 5-6 feats whilst melee only need 3 for the base combat and no if you reduced ranged to 3 feats their would not be people being super awesome at everything just because they made a Lvl 20 Fighter with some of the relevant feats of both melee and ranged...even if they had ALL the feats they'd still be limited by being able to hold a single weapon (or 2 melee weapons if twf) and only having x amount of APs for enhancements. BTW Rangers currently already do this and no one is crying OP on that.

I think someone on the Player's Council is a little too big for his britches. This is an exceptionally rude and unnecessary thing to say.

I'm sorry this has nothing to do with me being a council member asking for this is a waste of time it's like asking to be able to TWF and THF at the same time. Instead of continually demanding something the devs have already said their not going to do maybe give some ideas of how to improve the feats if you don't like them as is.

It is my perception that the Player's Council is made up primarily of players who have "arrived" -- that is, players who have available the most powerful builds in the game. They are out of touch with the "normal" players who only dream about having such characters. SWF with Shield threatens the status quo -- that is, it threatens them. It does have the potential to unseat the current power builds.

I don't know if your accusing the council of having special in-game powers or of only playing FoTM builds with 400 past lives.

The former is an absolute no, we play the same game as everyone else, the latter is a playstyle thing and is just as varied as the normal forums...personally I play mainly flavour builds....my guild is called "The Island of Misfit Toons" for a reason :P

Having played this game from almost the start I can remember many, many builds that have come and gone.

Admitedely I have not played since beta like some since unfortunately I refuse to play Sub-only games but I have been playing since 2009 when DDO went F2P and remain a proud premium player.

We are not children to be told "stop asking." To the contrary, some of us are likely older than Failedlegend's own parents and being dismissed as children is reason enough to request that he (she?) be removed from the Council for their arrogance and inability to demonstrate respect for the community.

Actually I'm 28 and my parents age is none of your business, I'm male and I'm entitled to my opinion and luckily the devs don't just want a bunch of yes-men on the council so I'm quite welcome.

I recognize that developers do not need to know anything about D&D or about the real world that gives rise to the fantasy behind D&D. But, someone should. It is obvious that neither they, the project managers nor the Player's Council have the background to do anything but read rulebooks and kluge game solutions to produce effects.

I'm not really sure what your saying here but I think your attempting to imply the devs have no knowledge of tabletop gaming and since I won't presume to speak for others I personally have been tabletop gaming for almost 2 decades and DMing for most of that time I've played 2e, 3e, 3.5e,4e,5e,Pathfinder, Various Star Wars tabletops, a doctor who tabletop game, shadowrun (various editions), ACKs, a handful of super hero tabletops and many others (plan to run or play a game of Wild Talents soon)

If you'd like to know more about me w/o getting to personal I'm willing to try to answer if it helps.

While simple to understand the problem is that SWF should provide the offensive boost in S&B while Shield should provide a defensive boost. The ignorance that permits shields to increase offensive abilities is the root of the problem.

S&B is just as important a combat style as SWF, TWF or THF if it didn't have any sort of offensive boosts than nobody would use it. Also this "Armor up" is giving shields plenty of defensive boosts making it quite potent.

[Therigar]

Let me explain, for those unable to connect the dots, why there should not be a change to ranged combat.

Melee combat does not involve just three feats. It is not BASIC style, IMPROVED style, GREATER style and then the character has arrived as a DPS master. It is that plus Power Attack, Precision, Cleave, Great Cleave, Whirlwind (if you can qualify by also taking Combat Expertise). Because of the greater risk of damage it is often Dodge with Mobility because reaching 30% or higher dodge is pretty hard without them for most players and Shield Mastery with Improved Shield Mastery (for those using SWF) because PRR from light armor and bucklers is low and the AC is so minimally effective that most players don't bother trying to improve it. And, let's not forget PERFECT style.

The fact is that melee involves many feats just like ranged does. To be effective in melee means using 11 or more feats and then combining all of that with optimal epic destiny decisions.

[Therigar]

I am not on the Player's Council, nor do I run particularly strong builds.

My opinion is that SWF and Shield feats should remain mutually exclusive, or become so if they are not currently.

I only post this to give you an example of a dissenting opinion from yours that comes from a player who does not fit the profile you have created for those who disagree with you.

Would this still be your POV if the Shield feats did not give offensive bonuses but only gave defensive ones? Would this still be your POV if the balance between offensive and defensive bonuses scaled with the type of shield being used?

The problem is that the Shield feats are badly conceived. This is the point of observing that developers do not need to know either D&D or history. All they need to be able to do is produce the desired output. But, garbage in is garbage out. When you start with a badly conceived concept you get a badly designed output.

SWF plus Shield might need to be mutually exclusive because of the flawed design of the Shield line which gives offensive benefits. My abbreviated history lesson on shields is meant to point out that this is NOT what shield feats should be doing. What I alluded to but neglected to say was that in the cultures that never developed shield use there was no doctrinal or tactical difference in their combat styles when compared to those that did use shields.

The notion that Shield is a separate combat style from SWF is in error. It is not. S&B is simply SWF plus Shield. And, the reason it is NOT overpowered is found in my post regarding why we should not change ranged combat. To be effective in melee involves many additional feats and players must sacrifice some of those in order to take the Shield feat line.

Only the absolutely most well designed, most powerful characters will be able to afford to make space for the Shield line and still maintain the core of additional melee feats -- those and fighters. And, if they could not combine the possibility of actually achieving noticeable AC with useful PRR via heavy armor and tower shields would they still be played in single weapon mode? In fact, how many S&B fighter builds are dominating the forum's build section?

If the Shield line had been well conceived so that the implementation had been coherent we would not be having this discussion. But, even as broken as it could potentially be making the two lines mutually exclusive is NOT the solution. It only impacts the most powerful characters and it badly alters the effectiveness of regular S&B type builds.

Our goal should be to make S&B competitive with TWF and THF. Until bards and Swashbuckling it was not. It still is not when the party consists of well designed and geared characters -- the rude awakening that comes once a player starts pushing the bard into epic content. They are either too strong with DPS and too weak with defenses or they are compelled to sacrifice destiny choices to gain at least useful defenses.

I posted in the thread about the Monte Cristo bard build. It works because it exploits the Divine Crusader ED. Really? What about the arcane destinies that are where bards are designed to operate?

Nobody seems to understand that the decision making at Turbine never grasps what players will do. Why do so many arcanes choose to run in the ranger ED? Would not have happened if developers had not given random damage effects to spells -- as if rangers were offensive spell gods ever in the history of D&D. Garbage in gave garbage out. But, that did not stop players from exploiting the stupidity of Turbine.

Can the same thing happen with SWF plus Shield? Sure. But, it is only because Shield is badly conceived to begin with. Keeping the two from working together only happens because Shield is badly conceived to begin with.

Last time Shield and Weapon (sword and board) was a combat style was second edition. DDO is 3.5e trending to 4e. There is nothing equivalent in 4e. What we are getting with the Shield feat line is a kluge that joins antiquated 2e thinking with 4e-like rules. It is a bad choice now made worse by pressure to continue making bad choices.

The solution is NOT to prohibit SWF and Shield but to rework the Shield line so that it provides the right balance of defense/offense based on the shield type.