What, never played a pure cleric at high levels? If you get far enough (level 32), you don't have a choice. And earlier on, it's a good option - putting a shield in your off hand really is the best thing you can do, so you might as well have a weapon style that works with it.
I'm unlikely to take the style on a protagonist - there's usually something better in the long run, even if I'm using a shield - but giving it to a tanking NPC, especially in BG1, can work well. AC tanking is a strong option in that part of the game, and enemy archers are common.
As for the various confused statements in this thread ... all right, here are the rules on weapon styles.
If you have a melee weapon in your main hand, exactly one weapon style applies.
- If the main-hand weapon is two-handed, that's two-handed style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's a shield in the off hand, that's sword and shield style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's another weapon in the off hand, that's two-weapon style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's nothing in the off hand, that's single-weapon style.
- If you have a ranged weapon in your main hand, no weapon style applies.
I gotta agree with @jmerry here: at least in BG1 where ranged enemies are plentiful and potentially very dangerous Sword and Shield Style can be pretty useful. Jaheira with two pips in it is nigh-on untouchable by arrows now even without the extra missile protection equipment, which in turn allowed me to give that stuff to other characters (Charname's wearing the girdle, Khalid the boots), making them pretty resistant to ranged attacks too.
BG2 is admittedly another story when ranged enemies aren't too terribly common and most of the time not really too dangerous either. But then again, if a specific character (Viconia for example) is carrying a shield anyway and will likely have spare pips eventually, why not make the shield a little better?
By the way, how much of a threat are ranged enemies in SoD? Would it be okay to finally bring Unshey her Girdle of Piercing back or should I rather hold on to it^^?
I gotta agree with @jmerry here: at least in BG1 where ranged enemies are plentiful and potentially very dangerous Sword and Shield Style can be pretty useful. Jaheira with two pips in it is nigh-on untouchable by arrows now even without the extra missile protection equipment, which in turn allowed me to give that stuff to other characters (Charname's wearing the girdle, Khalid the boots), making them pretty resistant to ranged attacks too.
BG2 is admittedly another story when ranged enemies aren't too terribly common and most of the time not really too dangerous either. But then again, if a specific character (Viconia for example) is carrying a shield anyway and will likely have spare pips eventually, why not make the shield a little better?
By the way, how much of a threat are ranged enemies in SoD? Would it be okay to finally bring Unshey her Girdle of Piercing back or should I rather hold on to it^^?
in the end i always give the girdle of piercing to my back end mages who have garbage AC ( relative to the rest of the party ) last thing you need is an enemy archer to interrupt your mage casting spells in combat
@sarevok57 : sure, that makes sense too, but by now my mage has stoneskins which should deal with everything short of magical arrows (?) and she doesn't really get attacked very often, only when things go pretty wrong anyway. My charname on the other hand is a totemic druid AND the party leader so he gets targeted at least sometimes and doesn't like being interrupted while spellcasting either. Losing an insect plague or even one of the daily spirit summons to a stray arrow sucks...
How about SoD? Soon about to try that one for the first time, are ranged enemies there as dangerous as in BG1 or rather as harmless as in BG2? And is the AI there smart enough to aim for thieves and mages instead of tanks more often?
Missiles are just as dangerous in SoD as in BGEE (arguably more so as enemies make better use of special abilities and often come equipped with magical ammunition) and the AI is better in the former. There are also more encounters with multiple enemies where the battlefield chaos makes it harder to provide enemies with a single target to focus on even before considering the AI improvements.
it's always been wrong because it's not even the right freaking skill.
2nd edition Sword & Shield Style is literally just two-weapon style except it lets you use your shield as a weapon.
* = -2/-4 thac0, can use Bucklers (1 damage)/Small Shields(1d3)
* *= 0/-2 thac0, can use medium shields (1d4+1)
Magical bonuses do NOT apply to hit/damage unless the shield is explicitly designed to be used as a weapon, but DO count for minimum requirements to "hit" an enemy.
Additionally any round you attack with your shield you lose it's AC bonus till your next round.
Not to mention, its' supposed to be available for specialization by Druids and Clerics.
Since EVERY CLASS can specialize (put up to 2 points, which is the maximum for all styles) in one weapon style, but only warrior can specialize in ALL of them.
Additionally you're not even supposed to have all 4 for non-warriors.
Wizards get Single Weapon and Two-handed
Priests get two-handed and Sword & Shield
And Rogues get Single weapon and Two Weapon
and warriors get all of them.
A more accurate sword and shield style would just be to give you -2 thac0 and +1 apr for proficiency, and then for 2 pips remove the thac0 penalty. Or if you wanna drag it out longer, doing -2 thac0 +1/2 apr, and then ** is just +1 apr with no penalty.
That way rogues have their PROPER specialization in two-weapon style (with blades automatically having 2 pips like rangers, which IS part of their classes bonuses they're supposed to have) they're currently missing, and Druids and Clerics can go with Sword & Shield style instead for a similar benefit.
And while very situational mages could either specialize in single weapon or two-handed, which ever fits your overall strategy better.
And as a reminder this is how it's SUPPOSED to work, not "balancing" just because.
And since Two-handed and Single Weapon are already buffed, I don't really see problem with the above implementation even it's a little bit stronger than S&S would be if it were properly implemented. (There is NO crit bonus for EITHER style in P&P, it's PURELY AC or damage/speed respectively). Additionally they should reduce two-weapon down to 2 pips like it's supposed to be.
Sword and shield sure needs something. Now it is something you take when your NPC does not have any other choice. Yes, it can be helpful in BG, but I still do not find that help worth a proficiency point.
On all rogues, yes I wish they could at least get more than 1 pip in TWF, like swashbucklers. I always mod this in for my thieves, although I usually don't use it until late SoA/ToB.
Sword and shield sure needs something. Now it is something you take when your NPC does not have any other choice. Yes, it can be helpful in BG, but I still do not find that help worth a proficiency point.
On all rogues, yes I wish they could at least get more than 1 pip in TWF, like swashbucklers. I always mod this in for my thieves, although I usually don't use it until late SoA/ToB.
I fully agree. I end up never taking it.
In SoA you have the relfection shield, which makes you want to not have pips in short and shield. But as you say in BG and SoD you can make use of the pips on NPC’s
Comments
I'm unlikely to take the style on a protagonist - there's usually something better in the long run, even if I'm using a shield - but giving it to a tanking NPC, especially in BG1, can work well. AC tanking is a strong option in that part of the game, and enemy archers are common.
As for the various confused statements in this thread ... all right, here are the rules on weapon styles.
If you have a melee weapon in your main hand, exactly one weapon style applies.
- If the main-hand weapon is two-handed, that's two-handed style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's a shield in the off hand, that's sword and shield style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's another weapon in the off hand, that's two-weapon style.
- If the main-hand weapon is one-handed and there's nothing in the off hand, that's single-weapon style.
- If you have a ranged weapon in your main hand, no weapon style applies.
BG2 is admittedly another story when ranged enemies aren't too terribly common and most of the time not really too dangerous either. But then again, if a specific character (Viconia for example) is carrying a shield anyway and will likely have spare pips eventually, why not make the shield a little better?
By the way, how much of a threat are ranged enemies in SoD? Would it be okay to finally bring Unshey her Girdle of Piercing back or should I rather hold on to it^^?
in the end i always give the girdle of piercing to my back end mages who have garbage AC ( relative to the rest of the party ) last thing you need is an enemy archer to interrupt your mage casting spells in combat
How about SoD? Soon about to try that one for the first time, are ranged enemies there as dangerous as in BG1 or rather as harmless as in BG2? And is the AI there smart enough to aim for thieves and mages instead of tanks more often?
2nd edition Sword & Shield Style is literally just two-weapon style except it lets you use your shield as a weapon.
* = -2/-4 thac0, can use Bucklers (1 damage)/Small Shields(1d3)
* *= 0/-2 thac0, can use medium shields (1d4+1)
Magical bonuses do NOT apply to hit/damage unless the shield is explicitly designed to be used as a weapon, but DO count for minimum requirements to "hit" an enemy.
Additionally any round you attack with your shield you lose it's AC bonus till your next round.
Not to mention, its' supposed to be available for specialization by Druids and Clerics.
Since EVERY CLASS can specialize (put up to 2 points, which is the maximum for all styles) in one weapon style, but only warrior can specialize in ALL of them.
Additionally you're not even supposed to have all 4 for non-warriors.
Wizards get Single Weapon and Two-handed
Priests get two-handed and Sword & Shield
And Rogues get Single weapon and Two Weapon
and warriors get all of them.
A more accurate sword and shield style would just be to give you -2 thac0 and +1 apr for proficiency, and then for 2 pips remove the thac0 penalty. Or if you wanna drag it out longer, doing -2 thac0 +1/2 apr, and then ** is just +1 apr with no penalty.
That way rogues have their PROPER specialization in two-weapon style (with blades automatically having 2 pips like rangers, which IS part of their classes bonuses they're supposed to have) they're currently missing, and Druids and Clerics can go with Sword & Shield style instead for a similar benefit.
And while very situational mages could either specialize in single weapon or two-handed, which ever fits your overall strategy better.
And as a reminder this is how it's SUPPOSED to work, not "balancing" just because.
And since Two-handed and Single Weapon are already buffed, I don't really see problem with the above implementation even it's a little bit stronger than S&S would be if it were properly implemented. (There is NO crit bonus for EITHER style in P&P, it's PURELY AC or damage/speed respectively). Additionally they should reduce two-weapon down to 2 pips like it's supposed to be.
Would have been an improvement to keep it that way. Could have had magical shields with extra damage enhancements as well because why not.
On all rogues, yes I wish they could at least get more than 1 pip in TWF, like swashbucklers. I always mod this in for my thieves, although I usually don't use it until late SoA/ToB.
In SoA you have the relfection shield, which makes you want to not have pips in short and shield. But as you say in BG and SoD you can make use of the pips on NPC’s