My Lizard switched from using Finesse spears to 1H weapons without shields, because the best defense is a good offense, and you can attack a lot more with 1H weapons and remove threats faster. It seems more helpful than the handful of armor you get from shields.
It's true that right now Shields don't offer enough defense to be worth an extra AP per attack. Enemies can still cut through it fast. But there is a lot of wheel reinventing happening here.
Ohh by every turn I mean "Every single person's turn" not just your own.
So if it has 21 armor... You get 21 armor every turn assuming you lose it.
I assume that such shields would be only Magic OR Physical armor, not both combined, and that the armor provided by shields remains at current "meh" levels.
Even so, that means having a shield is free immunity from CC attacks from whatever type of damage the shield blocks.
I think the best way to balance shields is to make targeting someone wearing one cost one extra AP for single target attacks, unless you are backstabbing them.
This simulates taking extra time to aim the attack, balances the current issue of them adding AP to the actions of the wielder and means that a tank wearing one will be suited to locking down enemies.
Thoughts?
So the AP cost for an attack depends not on the kind of attack you're using, but the kind of equipment they have? ...I do not think that is a good idea at all. It's unintuitive and goes against the way AP works.
Right. As it stands, shields are nothing but an additional armorpiece, which is pretty uninspiring.
In Dragon Age Inquisition, shields reduce all damage taken from the front by 30%. A similar system could be introduced here.
The AI is probably too dumb to understand how to use that. A player can just walk behind the enemy and attack them and poof, the enemy shield is ineffective. In PvP combat, it makes using a shield worthless, especially if it adds an extra AP to attacks.
