Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Dual wielding shields?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it possible? To Duel wield shields, because I am unsure. A ranger at level 2(with some hefty gold) can be duel wielding and do 2d6 per shield with no penalties.

Shield and weapon style.
level 2 Shield Master without prereqs
2 heavy steel shields, (Only AC bonus from 1)
Shield spikes on both. Bashing enchantment on both.
Aside from the gold cost, this ranger is now doing 2d6 damage TWF, with no penalty for TWF.

Cheliax

Shield Master isn't available to a ranger until level 6.


Touche, I guess I misread it, Either way, at level 6 hes duel weilding greatswords


See this thread.


That is a fascinating thread, but no where that I have found does it say in the rules you can main hand a shield. The rules that i've read(I might have missed something.) do say you can shield bash as an off hand attack.

Anyway, Thank you for the help :)


"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."

Nothing is said about main or off hand. Those are terms only used when two-weapon fighting. If you only attack with a shield, it is your main hand, and used as a one-handed martial weapon that does bludgeoning damage.


I must have an old version of the hard copy. My book says can bash with a shield as an off hand attack. pg. 152 core book. They must have changed it :)


yep, mention of shields as "an off-hand attack" was errata'd away


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

That's not bad. You don't get the stacked shield bonii, but you do get to bash without giving up one shield (which is as good as having both, since they don't stack).

Edit: The more I think about it, the more I like it. This thread goes in the favorites pile.


Yes you can.

You only get the shield bonus to AC from one though.


If you take the Shield bash chain of feats, you even get to keep your AC bonus.


As doomed hero says, there's nothing to stop you dual wielding two shields (except the fact that it would look utterly ridiculous and you should take an immediate penalty to your intimidate check because the bad guys are giggling at you). However, since you can only have one 'shield' bonus to your armour class I can't see any great benefit to it when you could be wielding a dwarven great axe in the other hand instead.

A roman legionary build would probably have the heavy shield as their main weapon and the short sword as their off hand weapon so using the shield as 'main' weapon shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Although I house rule it out unless the character has improved shield bash I don't think there's anything to stop a character with a shield (but no other weapon) taking attacks of opportunity, counting as armed etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You might want to read through the thread I linked to, Elinor. Also Hasayfu Hung Kuen - Double Tiger-Head Steel Shields.


There's also This thread, covering the same topic.


I'll take responcibility for this thread.


Heh, I don't have time to read all of one thread, let alone three.


Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:
However, since you can only have one 'shield' bonus to your armour class I can't see any great benefit to it when you could be wielding a dwarven great axe in the other hand instead.

Basically, with the 'Shield Master' feat and two shields you can eliminate all attack penalties from two-weapon fighting. With 'Shield Slam' you can also use each of those many attacks to knock them around the battlefield (potentially taking AoO from allies the whole time if you also have 'Greater Bull Rush') and/or prone. It's silly, but can be developed into an effective combat build.

Shadow Lodge

the possibilities with two Klars...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

[rant]And it's "DUAL" (meaning two) rather than "DUEL" (meaning formalized single combat).[/rant]

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:
[rant]And it's "DUAL" (meaning two) rather than "DUEL" (meaning formalized single combat).[/rant]

Maybe his fighting style involves smashing his shields into each other. :)


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Is there any chance that shield mastery will be errataed to be less ridiculus? Maybe by allowing to avoid penality with both hand regardless of the weapon?

Taldor

if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.

wield two of these guys:
Lion Shield

then get a third that's animated ;-)


Nezthalak wrote:
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.

I think most people are assuming the use of Improved Shield Bash, which is a prerequisite for Shield Master.


Nezthalak wrote:
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.

Unless you have this


Nezthalak wrote:

if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.

Since Improved Shield Bash is a prereq for Shield mastery, I'm pretty sure by RAW you get the bonus from one of them.

They won't stack though.

And by RAW it seems that is indeed possible, but that's something that even if it might be RAW-legal I would hope a GM nixes for it's utter ridicilousness.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
Quatar wrote:
Nezthalak wrote:

if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.

Since Improved Shield Bash is a prereq for Shield mastery, I'm pretty sure by RAW you get the bonus from one of them.

They won't stack though.

And by RAW it seems that is indeed possible, but that's something that even if it might be RAW-legal I would hope a GM nixes for it's utter ridicilousness.

(Disclaimer: Not a personal attack, just a bit of incredulousness. No offense intended.)

To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?

C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.


To be fair, Rangers with the sword and shield style don't need to have the pre-req for the improved shield bash.

Taldor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

admittedly, I don't use shields and haven't investigated the feat chains involving them. I stand proudly corrected. :)

Ultimate shield bash and proof you don't need sword to get the job done

Link


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
blahpers wrote:

To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?

C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.

Yes, really. Because the guy is supposed to be just a guy. A trained soldier, perhaps, but just a guy.

Some of us play in campaigns with none of that stuff. Often not even monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:
blahpers wrote:

To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?

C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.

Yes, really. Because the guy is supposed to be just a guy. A trained soldier, perhaps, but just a guy.

Some of us play in campaigns with none of that stuff. Often not even monks.

I'm sad for your games then. If you play to be the pizza guy, why play a fantasy game at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?


To add yet another thread on the subject.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tarantula wrote:
Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?

At the moment, Wizards yes, Clerics only in name (there is no divine magic in the world for the past several hundred years), Rangers yes but without magic, Paladins yes but again no divine magic. Goblins ? Probably but I haven't seen any. My bard can't cast cure spells, but don't ask the character why, they don't know. Don't ask me either, I'm not the DM.

The point is magic, being magic, is SUPPOSED to be fantastic. There is no analog. Even then, it's best when internally consistent.

Mundane fighting with weapons and armor is supposed to be, well, mundane. Unless you're at high levels with wuxia monks. And that's a different game.

As to pizza-guy: Let's say I'm playing a game set in a WWII analog, but with some of the 'fantasy' elements like the wierd superweapons (think "Hard Vacuum" if anyone else remembers that obscure game). Even then, an M1-Garand still works like an M1-Garand. I could be the baddest of badass special forces and I still wouldn't expect to be able to dual-wield and fire from the hip a pair of MG-34s, despite the presence of something far more fantastic like Space Battleship Yamato. That doesn't make me the pizza guy.

NinjaBurger delivery-person, maybe.

Edit: I can't spell, and to add Space Battleship Yamato.


I wouldn't allow it because it just looks silly in my head. Same reason I didnt allow my pally to train and ride a Garillon as his mount. It just breaks any since of immersion.

But again thats just my personal opinion. My players pitched a fit when I wouldnt allow the garillon riders of Mystra.... um no no and no.

Hopefully My paladin player doesnt read this thread.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
See this thread.

It's Munchkining taken to high art.

Is that why we get a new thread on Dual Shield use every other week or so? Some corner advantage derived from some twisted reading of RAW text?


Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
SlimGauge wrote:
Tarantula wrote:
Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?

At the moment, Wizards yes, Clerics only in name (there is no divine magic in the world for the past several hundred years), Rangers yes but without magic, Paladins yes but again no divine magic. Goblins ? Probably but I haven't seen any. My bard can't cast cure spells, but don't ask the character why, they don't know. Don't ask me either, I'm not the DM.

The point is magic, being magic, is SUPPOSED to be fantastic. There is no analog. Even then, it's best when internally consistent.

Mundane fighting with weapons and armor is supposed to be, well, mundane. Unless you're at high levels with wuxia monks. And that's a different game.

As to pizza-guy: Let's say I'm playing a game set in a WWII analog, but with some of the 'fantasy' elements like the wierd superweapons (think "Hard Vaccuum" if anyone else remembers that obscure game). Even then, an M1-Garand still works like an M1-Garand. I could be the baddest of badass special forces and I still wouldn't expect to be able to dual-wield and fire from the hip a pair of MG-34s. That doesn't make me the pizza guy.

Sounds fun (the cleric part has been done with positive results), and you're welcome to fiat away anything you feel doesn't fit your campaign. But that doesn't make the setup objectively ridiculous in the face of even more ridiculous things in the core rules and the default campaign setting. Nothing is really mundane there.


You do realize that there are a few different martial arts that focus on dual-shields? Yet you consider them ridiculous and breaking your immersion. This is a fantasy game, and in a fantasy game, the ridiculous become reality.

If you want to limit yourself to only real world martial skills, then you have to allow dual shields because they are an actual martial art from at least 2 different regions and training methods (Asia and Africa).

It kind of boggles my mind that in Pathfinder, dual wielding shields is the kicker that breaks immersion.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For some people it's gunslingers. For other it's attempts at dual-wielding oversized weapons. Perhaps it's dinosaurs. Heck, some people don't even like the eastern flavored stuff in their pseudo-european medieval to renaissance fantasy.

I just find the "it's fantasy, man, so anything goes" arguement anytime someone complains about versimilitude to be just as boggling.

Edit: I *still* can't spell.

Edit 2: @Tels I've seen enough of these threads to know someone was going to bring that up. I'm not claiming it's impossible to fight with two shields, I'm claiming that if fighting with two shields was as effective as the game makes it, it would have been far more wide-spread.


I was mainly just wondering because in my hard copy shields were limited to off hand attacks. If my players want to cheese away the fun of a pre-written campaign that is entirely up to them.

For myself at least, I find that struggling against encounters, and running away from things we can't beat is fun. That is me. If someone else things the ability to 1 round anything in the encounter is fun for them, It works.


I'm not so much against dual wielding shields.
But I think the feat that takes away the penalties for TWF with them was clearly not meant for that purpose but instead for a sword and board fighter who also smashes with the shield.


oh yeah, that was definiately RAI, but well... rules are meant to be bent until all it takes is a red cape to fly.


to me it's not so much about breaking immersion, I dont think dual shield fighting is that bad, even thematically cool looking, it's that they are wanting to power game it to the extreme of throwing great sword damage with both hands with no penalties at all. power gaming is one thing, Munchkinizing is a whole level of magnitude higher. I'd be ok with 2 light spiked shields or even non spiked heavies, but going that completely over the top is begging to die by god strike just as bad as a CG drow named droozt with a figurine of wondrous power tiger swinging a pair of scimi's.

Just my opinion as a DM.

Asta
PSY

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Dragonamedrake wrote:
I wouldn't allow it because it just looks silly in my head. .

OK, now imagine that they're forearm bucklers with spikes. I don't see it being as silly as some people want to make it out to be.


Quatar wrote:

I'm not so much against dual wielding shields.

But I think the feat that takes away the penalties for TWF with them was clearly not meant for that purpose but instead for a sword and board fighter who also smashes with the shield.

This is probably true, but if you are dual wielding shields for damage isn't that penalty enough? :)


not really, You are doing 2d6 + str/.5str per hit without a TWF penalty to hit.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So you're doing greatsword damage but requiring two attack rolls to accomplish it?

I don't see the problem.

Edit: Wait, 2d6 per hit? A spiked heavy shield is only 1d6.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

So you're doing greatsword damage but requiring two attack rolls to accomplish it?

I don't see the problem.

Edit: Wait, 2d6 per hit? A spiked heavy shield is only 1d6.

I'm not seeing where the additional damage is coming from either. Can you please explain it?


Bashing enchantment, lets the shield count as a +1 and two sizes larger.
1d6 turns into 2d6+1 then.

And that on both shields.


Don't forget shield master lets you count the shield enhancement as a weapon enhancement for to hit/damage as well.


Yeah, That stuff above.

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Dual wielding shields? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.