why is two handing considered so much better than sword and board?


Advice

101 to 150 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

What is funny is that PF and D&D have no idea that in real combat with a blade two-handed fighting is one of the weaker combat styles.
Speed kills in combat and the Sword and Board is right up there with the agile fencer style of combatant.

If a big hulking brute swings a sword at a man with a sword and shield, that brute dies unless is strength is ungodly in comparison to the shield bearers. Because simply deflecting his blade means he is wide open for an attack and in real sword play that means you die.

But that is the game we play where the designers just figured a flat 1.5x for damage was wise for the two-handed and penalizing everyone who goes two weapon was wise because obviously the style that ACTUALLY is superior in combat would be Way Way Weaker.


Real two-handed combat is not only big motions like chopping wood.

Silver Crusade

MadMartigen wrote:

What is funny is that PF and D&D have no idea that in real combat with a blade two-handed fighting is one of the weaker combat styles.

Speed kills in combat and the Sword and Board is right up there with the agile fencer style of combatant.

If a big hulking brute swings a sword at a man with a sword and shield, that brute dies unless is strength is ungodly in comparison to the shield bearers. Because simply deflecting his blade means he is wide open for an attack and in real sword play that means you die.

But that is the game we play where the designers just figured a flat 1.5x for damage was wise for the two-handed and penalizing everyone who goes two weapon was wise because obviously the style that ACTUALLY is superior in combat would be Way Way Weaker.

actually, to damper my own argument, a two-handed blade is not exceptionally heavy, and any warrior worth his salt with a two-handed weapon would be able to swing- and recover- from that swing without being stabbed.

some would use a literal wall of swings (think along the lines of a barbarian swings a greatsword around like a wild man, or a scottish highlander's way of fighting.)

Then there are the more, "agile" two-handed fighting styles with curved blades such as the Falchion etc.

Then you have the "heavy swingers" Greataxes, large hammers. These require A LOT of strength to wield, but the problem here is, if you take that swing on your shield, that arm is most likely useless. and Then by the time you get back into striking distance (after getting out of the dang way) he is bring the weapon on a backswing.

though in a 1v1, the SnB fighter, just as in PF, has the advantage.


Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...

Atarlost is right. The only way to benefit from a buckler and THF is the thuderstriker fighter archetype.


MadMartigen wrote:

What is funny is that PF and D&D have no idea that in real combat with a blade two-handed fighting is one of the weaker combat styles.

Speed kills in combat and the Sword and Board is right up there with the agile fencer style of combatant.

If a big hulking brute swings a sword at a man with a sword and shield, that brute dies unless is strength is ungodly in comparison to the shield bearers. Because simply deflecting his blade means he is wide open for an attack and in real sword play that means you die.

But that is the game we play where the designers just figured a flat 1.5x for damage was wise for the two-handed and penalizing everyone who goes two weapon was wise because obviously the style that ACTUALLY is superior in combat would be Way Way Weaker.

If the guy with a two handed weapon isent hulking but also a competent warrior he will use the extra reach and not swing so hard that it will leave him open.

That TWF in the game gives double up on attacks is silly. And have nothing to do with how Real World coordination works.
Just like the AC and HP mechanics are if you want realistisc combat.
Generally if realism is your goal different systems are the answer.


I'd like to weigh in on this as it seems to be shaping up into an honest to god debate. I'll do so later when I'm not about to run out of the house but there are a lot of factors involved in this scenario.


TarkXT wrote:
I'd like to weigh in on this as it seems to be shaping up into an honest to god debate. I'll do so later when I'm not about to run out of the house but there are a lot of factors involved in this scenario.

Dont wait too long, it wont stay honest you know;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just going to say this. I participate in actual combat with these weapons, and I have found that in my experience and in my training that florentine (TWF) beats sword and board which is often a toss up against 2 handing it regardless of weapon. TWF wins against 2 handers except when it is a polearm which actually loses to a free hand style of combat pretty consistently


Comparisons at level 20 are so pointless for multiple reasons. Seecially in this case, and specially in 1 vs 1, it is just magic item vs magic item.

FOr example the THF can have a +1 brilliant greatsword as a back up weapon (since he is not spending his money in a shield) so goodbye to the godlike AC of the SnB.

Comparisions around 5th to 13th levels are more meaningful.


rorek55 wrote:
MadMartigen wrote:

What is funny is that PF and D&D have no idea that in real combat with a blade two-handed fighting is one of the weaker combat styles.

Speed kills in combat and the Sword and Board is right up there with the agile fencer style of combatant.

If a big hulking brute swings a sword at a man with a sword and shield, that brute dies unless is strength is ungodly in comparison to the shield bearers. Because simply deflecting his blade means he is wide open for an attack and in real sword play that means you die.

But that is the game we play where the designers just figured a flat 1.5x for damage was wise for the two-handed and penalizing everyone who goes two weapon was wise because obviously the style that ACTUALLY is superior in combat would be Way Way Weaker.

actually, to damper my own argument, a two-handed blade is not exceptionally heavy, and any warrior worth his salt with a two-handed weapon would be able to swing- and recover- from that swing without being stabbed.

some would use a literal wall of swings (think along the lines of a barbarian swings a greatsword around like a wild man, or a scottish highlander's way of fighting.)

Then there are the more, "agile" two-handed fighting styles with curved blades such as the Falchion etc.

Then you have the "heavy swingers" Greataxes, large hammers. These require A LOT of strength to wield, but the problem here is, if you take that swing on your shield, that arm is most likely useless. and Then by the time you get back into striking distance (after getting out of the dang way) he is bring the weapon on a backswing.

though in a 1v1, the SnB fighter, just as in PF, has the advantage.

No two-handed blades are not very heavy, but they invest your momentum and strength to make a powerful strike. Any Shield user would move with both weapons at the same tie. Using the shield to occupy the sword with a block or deflection, mostly deflection as that forces your opponent to put more effort into the recovery and while blocking or deflecting stop inside their guard to strike. The idea of standing back and turtling up and just stabbing out from behind the shield isn't very effective.

The wall of swings is also not very effective because sure if you are fighting defensively you can use that but when you make the attack that is where the same problem as before arises. Unless your making thrusting attacks from a step forward, step back style and even then that will only prolong the fight, the two handed fighter using that will still likely die, just take a few more moments to do so.

Just a Guess wrote:
Real two-handed combat is not only big motions like chopping wood.

Of course, there are many two-handed fighting styles but you cannot eny that when wielding a two-handed sword/axe/etc that the habit of making the big strike is not common. In D&D and PF that is all that attack style is, overwhelming brute force is why they kill people faster.

Honestly I would have liked it if they brought out a archetype that could have used a heavier shield for the Swashbuckler, because Opportune Parry and Riposte is a nice little sword and board strike and allows for an additional attack. I do wish we could use 1.5 dex on attacks, because speed and accuracy should matter for more then a dang bow or gun.

Sovereign Court

Oakbreaker wrote:
Just going to say this. I participate in actual combat with these weapons, and I have found that in my experience and in my training that florentine (TWF) beats sword and board which is often a toss up against 2 handing it regardless of weapon. TWF wins against 2 handers except when it is a polearm which actually loses to a free hand style of combat pretty consistently

Part of that is that - for safety reasons - the sword & board style can't shield bash in modern day reinactments. (I did SCA myself for a couple years.) This allows the TWF combatant to ignore the shield as a threat.

Along the same lines - blocking with a blade is very nearly as effective as blocking with a shield in modern reinactments. Historically, a weapon swung hard enough could smash through such defenses.

That's why TWF wasn't really used in the middle ages when combatants used larger/heavier weapons, but it was used in later dueling - when people used lighter swords which weren't heavy enough to power through.


At the least, you have to accept that shields of all kinds have been common throughout history for a good reason. And this is despite the fact that carrying around a shield is cumbersome.


Abraham spalding wrote:


Honestly AC gets a bum wrap it doesn't deserve. It's really not that hard to have a good AC (meaning 75%+ block rate so to speak) especially with a shield.

I very, very disagree with this. In my experience, unless you have two stats going to AC, your AC will never be high enough to get missed. That doesn't mean you should always tank your AC it's not to only get hit once instead of 3 times with iterative attacks, but you are going to get hit.

The same can be said for the bad guys. You'll always be able to hit them, so the attack penalty for two-weapon fighting is really a non-issue, what is the issue is that standard actions happen far more frequently that full attack actions.


@Charon
I can't remember the group I did it with but shield bashing was allowed. Just was really easy to negate if you make good use of an axe. Again this was my experience with my training which may be atypical. The shield bash was a big reason sword and board was able to negate 2 handers and the free hand fighters. Grabbing the pole of the polearm was allowed which is why the free hand won on those alot. I have/seen several guys shield arms break under the force of swings or harsh rotation with a well hooked axe

Sovereign Court

Jodokai wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


Honestly AC gets a bum wrap it doesn't deserve. It's really not that hard to have a good AC (meaning 75%+ block rate so to speak) especially with a shield.
I very, very disagree with this. In my experience, unless you have two stats going to AC, your AC will never be high enough to get missed. That doesn't mean you should always tank your AC it's not to only get hit once instead of 3 times with iterative attacks, but you are going to get hit.

While I do admit that most characters I've seen have mediocre to poor AC, that doesn't mean that AC is hard to build. It just means that most people don't know how. (My level 7 PFS bard has had the highest AC at every table since he got his breastplate at level 2. And I didn't even build for it especially - he could easily be several points higher.)

With a shield it's not that difficult to be missed a decent chunk of the time on primary swings.


Something to be considered is that high AC work better agaisnt multiple not that strong hits.

Sure, a CR +4 melee focused baeast with two primary natural attacks will probably hit the shield user the same way than the non shield user. But agaisnt multiple lower CR the difference in AC can signify a huge difference in the damage received.

Silver Crusade

sample SnB fighter, 25pt buy, human, level 12

no items

Stats-
Str: 20 (17+2 +1)
Dex: 16 (+2)
Con: 14
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Cha: 07

Feats:
1- power attack, shield focus, weapon focus (heavy shield)
2-improved shield bash
3- Iron will
4- Weapon specialization (shield)
5- TWF
6- Shield slam
7- Double slice
8-Greater weapon focus (shield)
9- weapon focus (light weapon)
10- Weapon specialization (light weapon)
11- Two weapon Rend
12- Shield Master

13 would be greater weapon spec. Shield.


MadMartigen wrote:
*Stuff about real-world combat and two-handed weapons*

The advantage of using a longer weapon - such as a two-handed weapon - is you can essentially keep distance from the other guy by being threatening with your big blade. Given that, there are a number of techniques designed to allow a guy to move in past that range (therefore making it harder for the guy with a bigger weapon to defend himself) and techniques to keep the guy with the shorter weapon out of your range.

Shields were used throughout history, yes, but as one of my favorite guys-who-practices-with-real-weapons says, "There is no 'ultimate' weapon and there is no 'ultimate' style." I'm paraphrasing, but the point remains: a shield is fine and all, but there's enough variety between combatants that it's not the end-all-be-all either in warfare or in personal combat.

Quote:

While I do admit that most characters I've seen have mediocre to poor AC, that doesn't mean that AC is hard to build. It just means that most people don't know how. (My level 7 PFS bard has had the highest AC at every table since he got his breastplate at level 2. And I didn't even build for it especially - he could easily be several points higher.)

With a shield it's not that difficult to be missed a decent chunk of the time on primary swings.

I can agree with you on this. I like building bards with a decent dex that use a shield and drop it when it comes time to lay down the hammer, myself. (You don't need to have the shield on all the time after all.) In fact, I've been thinking of making a Core Campaign bard character that essentially is one of the frontliners, coming equipped with a heavy shield, a chain shirt and a basic pound-your-face-in weapon. Given the starting gold count of 150g in PFS, you could actually have a chain shirt, longsword and heavy shield with some javelins at level 1 - not a bad setup.

Of course, all the shield AC and armor AC in the world won't help you against Touch Attacks without some special means of making them do so. Furthermore, miss chances are worth more than a high AC. A two-handing Arcane Bloodrager can charge into the battlefield with Blur or Displacement up, for instance, which means any roll your enemy makes to hit you has to be rolled against a d100 afterward to see if it even has a chance of landing. There's nothing stopping a sword-and-board character from ALSO benefiting from raw miss chances, of course...


The action economy against multiple lower cr enemies is better for the 2H as well. More likely to bring them down in a hit or two as well.


How does your bard cast spells with a heavy shield?


Rogar Stonebow wrote:

The action economy against multiple lower cr enemies is better for the 2H as well. More likely to bring them down in a hit or two as well.

Not sure about that. THe DPR of the SnB will be lower but perhaps enough to kill lower CR enemies in the same amount of time, the higher DPR of the THF could be a waste.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jodokai wrote:
How does your bard cast spells with a heavy shield?

Simple: he'll draw his sword after casting whatever spells he needs to cast initially during the fight. Alternatively, I can open with a javelin instead of a sword (which will free my hand because, y'know, javelins are thrown) and cast the next round.

At the low levels, I can just carry a couple different weapons usable in melee; dropping a weapon is a free action and you can draw a weapon as part of a move action once you have 1 BAB.

Once you have a bit more money, Gloves of Storing are always nifty. Of course, that's not something you'll be buying anywhere near the beginning of the game since it's not core to this sort of build. Also, those are non-core, so in the Core Campaign I won't be using those.

If I really don't want to deal with the troubles of hefting a heavy shield around, I can just use a buckler and get a similar enough effect. Extra AC, can enchant for more. Hurrah. This is probably what I'd swap to at the higher levels once I don't just cast 1-2 spells per battle max. Until level 3, though, a heavy shield does the trick just fine.

By the way, as a first level character, this bard's spells would be Sleep and Cure Light Wounds. Round 1, cast Sleep and move as necessary. Round 2, draw sword and start song. Round 3, beat the crap out of things. Cure Light Wounds should (hopefully) see use between fights, and if I have to use it during a fight I can just drop my sword, heal someone, and hurl a javelin instead of wading into the melee. Or, y'know, I can pack some cheap melee weapons... or free ones like clubs. (This is assuming I don't skip the step in Round 1 because the monsters aren't worth it.)

If I was using this in non-core material, one of my first Bard spells would probably be Gallant Inspiration (which would be a good reason for me to not use Arcane Strike every round necessarily) and use it either to ensure I hit stuff or to ensure that the other beat-someone's-head-in-dudes do that job for me.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sword and shield suffer from the same gimp that TWF suffers.

First a 2 handed gets STR and a half every attack.
TWF/ sword and board only gets str and a half on a full attack.

This means if you move more than 5 feet the 2 handed guy is ahead in damage.

Second is an accuracy issue. TWF is both feat intensive and comes with accuracy loss.
the 2 handed build needs only power attack.
feat investment is important. So the 2 handed guy has a ton more feats to play with.

Now if your standing optimally for a full attack you will hardly see much difference in damage. But when you start adding DR then the two handed guy come out on top again.

Lastly is cost effectiveness. 1 weapon and 1 armor is cheaper than 1 weapon and 2 armors to enchant and feat for.

All in all mechanically 2 handed is better. But archery still shits on everything.

Sovereign Court

Fruian Thistlefoot wrote:
Lastly is cost effectiveness. 1 weapon and 1 armor is cheaper than 1 weapon and 2 armors to enchant and feat for.

Totally disagree on this one. Even just by splitting your armor enchantment gold equally, the sword & board gets far more bang for their buck.

They might also lower their AoNA or protection ring for more efficient AC as well. All for far more efficient AC then without a shield. They spend less on each additional point than the two-handed warrior does.

The only thing that I think should be tweaked for sword & board is that they're giving up offense for only one form of defense. If a shield boosted one's saves (it should for reflex saves at least - and a valid argument can be made for single target fort/will saves) then it'd be far more valuable.


Another vote for using a buckler and a one-handed weapon. Use the buckler when you're focusing on positioning or combat maneuvers (or not freaking dying because you're outnumbered or up against something horrible), and then switch to swinging two-handed when you're ready to take someone out.

A good shield (and as Ashiel called out, especially if combined with Combat Expertise) can make the difference between an enemy's full attack killing you outright or just ruffling your hair.

@ Lemmy: I always assumed you lost the buckler's shield bonus when you were swing a weapon with both hands, since you're still using the arm wearing the buckler for offense rather than defense; seems better than intended otherwise.


Inlaa wrote:


By the way, as a first level character, this bard's spells would be Sleep and Cure Light Wounds. Round 1, cast Sleep and move as necessary. Round 2, draw sword and start song. Round 3, beat the crap out of things.

Sleep is a 1-round spell.


Nicos wrote:
Inlaa wrote:


By the way, as a first level character, this bard's spells would be Sleep and Cure Light Wounds. Round 1, cast Sleep and move as necessary. Round 2, draw sword and start song. Round 3, beat the crap out of things.
Sleep is a 1-round spell.

Then the only change is remove "move as necessary." Tactics remain the same. You only have 1 attack at level 1 so charging is a thing.

I completely forgot that, though, and I'll keep that in mind (since that means Sleep goes off at the beginning of your turn in round 2). Important adjustment; I completely forgot about that. Still, it shouldn't change much once I start the character.

Sovereign Court

Inlaa wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Inlaa wrote:


By the way, as a first level character, this bard's spells would be Sleep and Cure Light Wounds. Round 1, cast Sleep and move as necessary. Round 2, draw sword and start song. Round 3, beat the crap out of things.
Sleep is a 1-round spell.

Then the only change is remove "move as necessary." Tactics remain the same. You only have 1 attack at level 1 so charging is a thing.

I completely forgot that, though, and I'll keep that in mind (since that means Sleep goes off at the beginning of your turn in round 2). Important adjustment; I completely forgot about that. Still, it shouldn't change much once I start the character.

Sleep isn't that good for a combat bard anyway. Their charisma isn't high enough for decent DCs. Mine just focuses on buffing/utility where DCs are irrelevant.


Yeah and having dump stats is also "better", I think they mean optimized.

Optimization is good to know, and good to play....

But!

Many UN-optimal options are more fun!
Are more like some image I have in mind.


Quote:
Sleep isn't that good for a combat bard anyway. Their charisma isn't high enough for decent DCs. Mine just focuses on buffing/utility where DCs are irrelevant.

I agree with you, but it's level 1 and you can trade out spells as you level as a bard.

Basically, it's a great way to potentially remove threats from the battlefield when you're starting your adventuring career, but you quickly replace your old spells with something more useful as you go along.

Even if your spell save DC is only 12 (1 from spell level, 1 from CHA), that's a roughly 50/50 chance that your average clump of mooks at level 1 will collapse immediately. Goblins, kobolds, level 1 warrior bandits...

Eventually, you'll have almost all buff and utility spells; and really the GOOD bard buff spells start coming once you get 2nd level spells. Level 1 stuff can be interesting, but that control in the beginning outweighs it.

Quote:

Yeah and having dump stats is also "better", I think they mean optimized.

Optimization is good to know, and good to play....

But!

Many UN-optimal options are more fun!
Are more like some image I have in mind.

I consider myself an optimizer, actually. I take a concept that may not be the best ("I want to specialize in throwing axes") and make it as effective as I possibly can. I build my stats accordingly.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Inlaa wrote:


I consider myself an optimizer, actually. I take a concept that may not be the best ("I want to specialize in throwing axes") and make it as effective as I possibly can. I build my stats accordingly.

And that's (in my opinion) the difference between an optimizer and a munchkin. The optimizer optimizes a concept to its limit, while a munchkin makes sure to start with one of the most powerful concepts. (Opinions may vary.)


Ah for the days when taking a two hand sword meant doing more damage, but also invariably always striking last in the round...

Silver Crusade

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Inlaa wrote:


I consider myself an optimizer, actually. I take a concept that may not be the best ("I want to specialize in throwing axes") and make it as effective as I possibly can. I build my stats accordingly.
And that's (in my opinion) the difference between an optimizer and a munchkin. The optimizer optimizes a concept to its limit, while a munchkin makes sure to start with one of the most powerful concept. (Opinions may vary.)

I agree with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...

It doesn't say off-hand attack. It says attack with a weapon in your off-hand. A two handed weapon is in both hands. One handed missile weapons that only require two hands to reload may let you use your buckler, but they'd also let you do the hold with light shield to reload with unburdened hand trick so the buckler doesn't really gain you much.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

If you do the math, similarly equipped and statted sword and board guys will usually kill 2h guys in a fight one on one...the extra shield AC makes more difference then the extra damage the 2h guys get.

However, fighting monsters who are not relying on AC to hit you, pure damage is what you want and need, and the Shield is now an impediment.

Thus, a true Sword and Board fighter is NOT a sword and board fighter. He's a 'whatever works best for this fight' fighter.

He should be wielding a weapon he can 2h as well as single hand (bastard sword/katana ideal for this). He should be using a Quickdraw shield so he can gain his shield AC when appropriate.

A useful archetype for this is the Taldan Falcata and buckler combination, who can bash with the buckler.

Generally, you don't waste feats on Shield Focus. You have other defenses to think about. Instead, just raise the AC on the shield and your armor together.

When you need a high AC against a melee brute, use your shield. It will save you a lot of damage and you'll do excellent damage if you only get in an extra bash or two.

If you get an Uber Shield (+5 Bashing, +5 Defender SPiked), your AC against a foe when using a shield, even while bashing, will be +11 or +12, with no other feats then Shield Master. YOu basically become invulnerable.

You probably only want 1 of the TWF feats. As has been noted MANY times, the penalty for TWF on top of the lower damage you do can be excessive.

The ideal weapon for a shield Master/bashing combo is a sun sword, since it's treated as a light weapon.

If you are fighting multiple small foes and need to clear a path, 2H and clear the room hacking away, you are only 1-3 pts less then a Greatsword user. If you need the defense, slap on the shield.

Note that Ghost Touch and Ray Shield can provide excellent protection against many form of hostile touch attacks. If you can get SHield Ward from 3.5, that's even better.
-------------

IN summary, sword and board users need to use the best fighting style of the moment to do what they want to do.

==Aelryinth

Dark Archive

My Smitey Paladin (level 13, sword and board)
Human paladin (oath against fiends) 13 (Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Magic 60)
LG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +0
Aura courage (10 ft.), justice (10 ft.)
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 35, touch 17, flat-footed 30 (+10 armor, +1 deflection, +5 Dex, +1 insight, +2 natural, +6 shield)
hp 134 (13d10+52)
Fort +23, Ref +20, Will +19 (+6 vs. charm and compulsion); +1 trait bonus vs Spells and Spell-Like Abilities of Evil Outsiders
Immune disease, fear; Resist cold 3, fire 10
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 agile merciful rapier +17/+12/+7 (1d6+6 nonlethal/18-20 plus 1d6 non-lethal) and
. . +5 light shield bash +23/+18/+13 (1d4+5)
Smiting+1 agile merciful rapier +23/+18/+13 (1d6+19 nonlethal/18-20 plus 1d6 non-lethal) and
. . +5 light shield bash +29/+14/+19 (1d4+18)
Special Attacks channel positive energy 6/day (DC 22, 7d6), smite evil 5/day (+6 attack, +5 to AC (because of ring of prot +1), +13 damage), divine bond weapon or shield (not included above)
Paladin Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +16)
. . At will—detect evil
Paladin (Oath against Fiends) Spells Prepared (CL 10th; concentration +16)
. . 4th x 1
. . 3rd x 2
. . 2nd x 4
. . 1st x 5
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 12, Dex 20, Con 18, Int 7, Wis 10, Cha 22
Base Atk +13; CMB +14; CMD 31
Feats Greater Two-weapon Fighting, Improved Shield Bash, Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Shield Master, Shield Slam, Two-weapon Fighting, Weapon Finesse
Traits crusader road acolyte (echo wood), irrepressible
Skills Diplomacy +22
Languages Common
SQ anchoring aura, divine bond (weapon +3, 3/day), holy vessel, lay on hands 12/day (6d6), mercies (diseased, fatigued, paralyzed)
Other Gear +4 mithral breastplate, +5 shield spikes light steel shield, +1 agile merciful rapier, dusty rose prism ioun stone, amulet of natural armor +2, belt of mighty constitution +4, cloak of resistance +5, feather step slippers, headband of alluring charisma +4, ring of feather falling, ring of protection +1
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Anchoring Aura (DC 22) (Su) At 8th level, a paladin's aura hampers extradimensional travel by evil outsiders. The aura extends 20 feet from the paladin. Evil outsiders attempting to use abilities such as dimension door, plane shift, or teleport to leave or
Aura of Courage +4 (10 ft.) (Su) Allies in aura gain a morale bonus to saves vs. fear.
Aura of Justice (10 ft.) (Su) As a standard action use 2 smite evil, allies in area gain smite at your bonus for 1 min.
Crusader Road Acolyte (Echo Wood, Evil) +1 trait bonus on saves vs. Spells/SLAs of evil outsiders.
Detect Evil (At will) (Sp) You can use detect evil at will (as the spell).
Divine Bond (Weapon +3, 13 mins, 3/day) (Sp) Weapon shines with light and gains enhancement bonuses or chosen properties.
Energy Resistance, Cold (3) You have the specified Energy Resistance against Cold attacks.
Energy Resistance, Fire (10) You have the specified Energy Resistance against Fire attacks.
Feather step slippers Ignore difficult terrain as though affected by feather step.
Holy Vessel (Su) At 9th level, a paladin whose divine bond is with a weapon can also use her divine bond to augment her armor or shield with enhancement bonuses, or add any of the following armor or shield properties: bashing, fortification, and spel
Immunity to Disease You are immune to diseases.
Immunity to Fear (Ex) You are immune to all fear effects.
Improved Shield Bash You still get your shield bonus while using Shield Bash.
Irrepressible You can use your Charisma modifier instead of Wisdom for Will saves vs. charm & compulsion.
Lay on Hands (6d6 hit points, 12/day) (Su) As a standard action (swift on self), touch channels positive energy and applies mercies.
Mercy (Diseased) (Su) When you use your lay on hands ability, it also removes disease, as per the remove disease spell at a caster level of your Paladin level.
Mercy (Fatigued) (Su) When you use your lay on hands ability, it also removes the fatigued condition.
Mercy (Paralyzed) (Su) When you use your lay on hands ability, it also removes the paralyzed condition.
Paladin Channel Positive Energy 7d6 (6/day, DC 22) (Su) Positive energy heals the living and harms the undead; negative has the reverse effect.
Ring of feather falling Feather fall activates if you fall more than 5 ft.
Shield Master No off-hand penalties for shield bashes, add a shield's enhancement bonus to attack rolls.
Shield Slam Shield Bash attack gives a free bull rush on a hit.
Smite Evil (5/day) (Su) +6 to hit, +13 to damage, +6 deflection bonus to AC when used.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

(with some modifications from me).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Need to make the spiked shield Bashing.
Next up...start making it a +5 Defender, level by level, and really watch your Combat aC soar. Or, make it Guardian, for the saves.

That sword really needs Bane/Evil outsiders...

Note defender AC is touch AC.

Unsanctioned Knowledge is a VERY good feat for paladins if you've the room.

==Aelryinth


Scythia wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
PF rewards offense over defense. The ultimate defense is killing your opponent before he gets a turn.
One needs no defense against a dead opponent.

The fact that like 1/3 of the bestiary is made of the living-impaired seems to argue otherwise


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SlimGauge wrote:

Quibble the first: POLEaxe.

Quibble the second: I see that the other way 'round. Once plate armor got really good and less uncommon, you needed the extra power of a two-handed weapon to overcome it. The warrior didn't give up the shield because he was more confident in his own armor, he gave it up because he needed that hand to wield a weapon that could overcome the OTHER guy's armor.

Actually 'pollaxe' is usually thought to come from 'poll', meaning 'head', because of the elaborate specialized heads they used, rather than the fact that it's mounted on a pole like all axes and polearms.

The warrior gave up his shield for both reasons. A shield is a pain in the ass to carry around and tiresome to hold up. By nature it can't be nearly as solid as plate armor that distributes it's weight across the body, or holding it up and maneuvering it would be utterly exhausting. Contrary to popular imagery, heavily armored knights of the later middle ages tended to go without a shield on horseback as well, since it's damn awkward to try to maneuver a shield while riding a horse. Once chainmail is replaced with reliable plates of tempered steel, a shield is just far less useful, and the trade-off in weight and agility turns sour. The good old days...

Silver Crusade

People are missing a big aspect of realism in this discussion: convenience! Most people do not go about their daily lives armed and armored, expecting trouble! Sword and buckler are sidearms, which can be carried about conveniently while one goes about one's daily business. Big two handed weapons are primary battle weapons. Only a soldier or a murderhobo lugs around a primary battle weapon. It's utterly impractical to carry around a big battle weapon for daily business, unless carrying that weapon is your business.

We still have this distinction in the modern day. A person can wear a pistol (possibly concealed), which is a sidearm, for all daily business. After a while one doesn't even notice it's there. Only a soldier or a murderhobo lugs around a primary battle weapon, like an M16, AK47, or grenade launcher. If you intend to find a battle of course you want the primary battle weapon! If battle finds you then you will be glad to have a sidearm, because it's a lot better than nothing.

Of course the fighter with the primary battle weapon has the advantage! It's a testament to the ancient weapon masters that they developed a combination of sidearms (sword & buckler, etc) that's almost as good as a primary battle weapon (longspear, longbow, heavy crossbow, polearm, greatsword, etc). Just don't mistake the one for the other!

Frankly, I'd be deeply disappointed in the system if it allowed convenient sidearms to be more effective than primary battle weapons. That's not how it works in the modern day, and that's not how it worked in antiquity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think bothering to worry about historical accuracy and realism when talking about fantasy games is a waste of time in general. Next we'll square cube lawing most of the monsters out of existence. Yay, realism.

Silver Crusade

Only if the players and the GM handwave encumbrance! Longspears and polearms do not fit in a backpack! Some tables and play styles handwave this stuff, and allow a Fighter to carry seven different polearms. Some do not. Don't try it at my table.


Magda Luckbender wrote:
Only if the players and the GM handwave encumbrance! Longspears and polearms do not fit in a backpack! Some tables and play styles handwave this stuff, and allow a Fighter to carry seven different polearms. Some do not. Don't try it at my table.

Agreed. There is a magical item for carrying 10 different large weapons and it's pretty cheap. Otherwise carrying a "golfbag" of implements makes no sense.

On my current character I am doing a "will only use what drops" challenge for gear and his current implements of doom are a +1 Trident, +1 Heavy shield, and a MW longsword on his belt.

He's a melee hunter who abuses broken wing gambit+paired opportunist+outflank to get his animal companion to make many AoOs and the shield is there to offset his AC penalty and d8 hit die. I need him to be as tough as possible to make this strategy work and he's always capable of dropping his shield to two hand that trident if needed.

Grand Lodge

Focusing on historical accuracy and realism, would actually ruin immersion for me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Deals more damage and doesn't require a million feats...

...And you can always use a buckler fot a nice boost to AC in exchange for a mere -1 to attack rolls.

No dice. You don't get buckler AC any round you use a weapon in your off-hand or use it to cast somatic spell components.
A 2-handed attack is not an offhand attack... Or at least it wasn't... Paizo idiotic FAQ for Schronsigger hands made everything needlessly complicated and confusing...
It doesn't say off-hand attack. It says attack with a weapon in your off-hand. A two handed weapon is in both hands. One handed missile weapons that only require two hands to reload may let you use your buckler, but they'd also let you do the hold with light shield to reload with unburdened hand trick so the buckler doesn't really gain you much.

And there was no such thing as an "off-hand" before Paizo's worst FAQ ever (and that's saying something, considering the usual... ahem... "quality" of Paizo FAQs), just off-hand attacks.

Now we have Schrondigger's hands... Because needlessly complicated rules and needless nerfs are the specialty of Paizo FAQs!

Silver Crusade

You'd never get Buckler AC when two handing a weapon in my game.

Grand Lodge

rorek55 wrote:
You'd never get Buckler AC when two handing a weapon in my game.

Even when abilities specifically allow it, such as the Thunderstriker's Improved Buckler Defense ability?

What about if you never attack?

Silver Crusade

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Focusing on historical accuracy and realism, would actually ruin immersion for me.

That's an interesting contrast, BBT! Ignoring historical accuracy and realism would actually ruin immersion for me.

Different strokes for different folks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You may want to rethink fantasy games in general then Magda Luckbender. As they involve fantasy elements not historical elements. Or did I miss the rise of Cheliax somewhere along the line? It's *that country* again isn't it?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Magda Luckbender wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Focusing on historical accuracy and realism, would actually ruin immersion for me.

That's an interesting contrast, BBT! Ignoring historical accuracy and realism would actually ruin immersion for me.

Different strokes for different folks.

I didn't say ignoring, but if that becomes the main focus, it destroys immersion.

Historically accurate and realistic Dwarves, Elves, Halfling, and Gnomes?

This game just doesn't work when you focus too much on such things.

Even a 7th level Fighter breaks realism.

101 to 150 of 228 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / why is two handing considered so much better than sword and board? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.