Falone's page

LOL
It just occured to me, that somewhere in this conversation we switched position. We started off with me arguing the point that a strict interpretation the rule, word for word, allows dual shield wielding. The counter point argument was that it does not, and while it was possibly that it could be interpreted in such a way, that doing so would violate the intention of the rule and create a unbalance in the game; especially at higher levels. Now the conversation has focused on Shield Mastery, and I’m saying that the intention of the rule requires a weapon, while the counter point is, that it does not, what’s more, anything, including an open hand attack, will work as a weapon!

LOL

Falone wrote:

Tels wrote:

Falone wrote:

Tels wrote:

Shield Master is a feat that lets you add the enhancement bonus to defense, as an enhancement bonus on offense.

Falone wrote:

Q1) I thought you can only shield bash with the off-hand, which I understand only offers one attack?

Q2) Using that same build, what would be the AC if you only had one shield?

Q3)If you enchant a shield for protection, I thought it only operates as a defense, any offense has to enchanted separately.?

Q1: No, this is not true. You can shield bash as both your off-hand and main hand attacks.

Q2: Not really a build, but without that second shield you're getting Full Plate (+14), Shield (+9), +10 (amulet/ring), +3 (dodge, ioun stone, jingasa), up to +7 Dex for a total AC of 53. Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively can raise these higher. Keep in mind that one can pretty easily get a 40+ attack bonus at this level.

Q3: See the Shield Master feat above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shield master only works when you have one shield and one weapon. It says wield a weapon, not use a non-weapon as a weapon.

A Shield is also a weapon. So if you attack with a shield, it's a weapon and qualifies for Shield Master.

but it doesn't say attack, it says wield. Would an open hand attack qualify then, you attacked with it? Hell anything can be a weapon by that definition...right?

And if that's true, that anything can be a weapon, then it's not the dual wielding that's broke, it's either the shield mastery feat or the definition of weapon.

Not that I don't get your point... I do. dual shield can get gross.

Tels wrote:

Falone wrote:

Tels wrote:

Shield Master is a feat that lets you add the enhancement bonus to defense, as an enhancement bonus on offense.

Falone wrote:

Q1) I thought you can only shield bash with the off-hand, which I understand only offers one attack?

Q2) Using that same build, what would be the AC if you only had one shield?

Q3)If you enchant a shield for protection, I thought it only operates as a defense, any offense has to enchanted separately.?

Q1: No, this is not true. You can shield bash as both your off-hand and main hand attacks.

Q2: Not really a build, but without that second shield you're getting Full Plate (+14), Shield (+9), +10 (amulet/ring), +3 (dodge, ioun stone, jingasa), up to +7 Dex for a total AC of 53. Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively can raise these higher. Keep in mind that one can pretty easily get a 40+ attack bonus at this level.

Q3: See the Shield Master feat above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shield master only works when you have one shield and one weapon. It says wield a weapon, not use a non-weapon as a weapon.

A Shield is also a weapon. So if you attack with a shield, it's a weapon and qualifies for Shield Master.

but it doesn't say attack, it says wield. Would an open hand attack qualify then, you attacked with it? Hell anything can be a weapon by that definition...right?

And if that's true, that anything can be a weapon, then it's not the dual wielding that's broke, it's either the shield mastery feat or the definition of weapon.

Falone wrote:

Tels wrote:

Shield Master is a feat that lets you add the enhancement bonus to defense, as an enhancement bonus on offense.

Falone wrote:

Q1) I thought you can only shield bash with the off-hand, which I understand only offers one attack?

Q2) Using that same build, what would be the AC if you only had one shield?

Q3)If you enchant a shield for protection, I thought it only operates as a defense, any offense has to enchanted separately.?

Q1: No, this is not true. You can shield bash as both your off-hand and main hand attacks.

Q2: Not really a build, but without that second shield you're getting Full Plate (+14), Shield (+9), +10 (amulet/ring), +3 (dodge, ioun stone, jingasa), up to +7 Dex for a total AC of 53. Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively can raise these higher. Keep in mind that one can pretty easily get a 40+ attack bonus at this level.

Q3: See the Shield Master feat above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shield master only works when you have one shield and one weapon. It says wield a weapon, not use a non-weapon as a weapon.

A Shield is also a weapon. So if you attack with a shield, it's a weapon and qualifies for Shield Master.

but it doesn't say attack, it says wield. Would an open hand attack qualify then, you attacked with it? Hell anything can be a weapon by that definition...right?

Shield Master is a feat that lets you add the enhancement bonus to defense, as an enhancement bonus on offense.

Falone wrote:

Q1) I thought you can only shield bash with the off-hand, which I understand only offers one attack?

Q2) Using that same build, what would be the AC if you only had one shield?

Q3)If you enchant a shield for protection, I thought it only operates as a defense, any offense has to enchanted separately.?

Q1: No, this is not true. You can shield bash as both your off-hand and main hand attacks.

Q2: Not really a build, but without that second shield you're getting Full Plate (+14), Shield (+9), +10 (amulet/ring), +3 (dodge, ioun stone, jingasa), up to +7 Dex for a total AC of 53. Combat Expertise and Fighting Defensively can raise these higher. Keep in mind that one can pretty easily get a 40+ attack bonus at this level.

Q3: See the Shield Master feat above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shield master only works when you have one shield and one weapon. It says wield a weapon, not use a non-weapon as a weapon.

Being susceptible to spells is more a being of class choice.

Ok, for a martial character, allowing the use of multiple shields to add to AC is a very powerful option. Easily a 8 or higher on the scale.

The reason being that such a character can whittle away at an enemy with almost impunity because of his huge AC bonus.

A Heavy Steel Shield is a +2 bonus, and if you take Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus you get a +4 bonus from the shield. Now you've got two shields, so that's a total of a +8 bonus to AC from just the two shields and two feats.

Toss on Full-plate and you're already sitting on a 27 AC and you haven't even added any magic and only 2 feats.

Once you get to 11th level, you can use Shield Master to double-dip the enhancement bonus on the shield. Enhancing your shield as a defensive item, also adds to it's offensive quality.

For example, if you have a +5 Shiled (for a total of +7 to AC before feats like Shield Focus), if you have Shield Master, it also functions as a +5 weapon. It only cost you 25,000 gp, while buying a +5 weapon normally costs 50,000 gp. Good news! Because Two Weapon Fighting is a pre-requisite for Shield Master, so you can buy two +5 Shields for the cost of one +5 weapon and with Shield Master, you are getting two +5 weapons for the cost of one +5 weapon.

So, in the above, you have Shield Focus, Greater Focus, and two +5 Heavy Shields. All total, you're getting +18 to your AC from your shields, and they both function as +5 weapons.

But here's the kicker, you can also enhance the shield as if it were a weapon. So you make one of the shields a +1 Dueling weapon, which allows you to transfer some, or all, of the shields enhancement bonus on attack rolls, and add it to your AC.

So you take one of those shields (lets say your off-hand shield), and you transfer the +5 enhancement bonus that Shield Master gives you, and add it to your AC. So now one shield is giving you up to a +14 bonus to AC by itself.

So between the two shields, you now...

You seem pretty fast with answers...so I'll ask them.

Q2) Using that same build, what would be the AC if you only had one shield?

Q3)If you enchant a shield for protection, I thought it only operates as a defense, any offense has to enchanted separately.?

While I don't have programs to do my work for me.... from what I'm hearing, it can get gross....but let me ask this question, is it any more gross that any other speced-out build? Or how does it fare against spells and the like. Break it down to bitable terms. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being a broken build; what number is it. Put it into context, not opinion.

Falone wrote:

So now that I think about it, if MWF uses shield attack, then it is in essance trading AC for in infurior weapon?

Depends on your definition of inferior. If you were going a two-handed route, then yes, you'd definitely do more damage. But if you actually look at the weapon charts, 1d6 is the top end of light weapons (unless you go with an aklys, which is a weird situational weapon anyway) and 1d8 is pretty much the top end for one-handed weapons unless you invest in an exotic proficiency. So once you get bashing on them, your shields are comparable with what you'd be wielding if you were using actual weapons (to be fair, if you take crit range into account, they are inferior, but for pure damage they're not).

Again, the purpose of this isn't really to tout that these are the optimal builds. They're not. But your damage trade-off for the amount of AC you could get if your shield bonuses were allowed to stack isn't sufficient; you're still doing nearly the same amount (if not the same amount) of effective damage as a standard weapon-based TWF build, while basically rendering yourself almost unhittable.

Wait... I can't confirm builds, only rules. But the basic design of a shield bash, is that if you do it, you lose the AC Bonus. So if the fighter bashes just once, he looses the AC Bonus; does that calculate in?

I posted a 1st level human fighter dual-wielding shields with the assumption that the bonuses stack. He'd never have quite as much AC as the Kasatha, but with Shield Focus adding +1 to the shield bonus from his shield it'd make up for a bit of a loss. Plus with only 2 shields to enhance he could probably have them enhanced at +4\+3 by 11th instead, which would almost make up for not having the extra arms.

Now to be fair, at 1st level he'd still have a 21 AC even without the doubled shield bonus, and that's nothing to sneeze at. It's when you start leveling that you start getting really gross.

So now that I think about it, if MWF uses shield attack, then it is in essance trading AC for in infurior weapon?

Falone wrote:

I must have missed something.... MWF doesn't work just like TWF, it replaces it. so the primary hand will be -2, but all the other hands will only be +1, as I read it. Not that that's not gross...it is. Personally I'm having a problem understanding how this is a CL1.

I'm using a software called Hero Lab to create the characters. While it's not perfect, in this case I'm 99% certain that it's calculating everything correctly.

Here's the relevant text of Multiweapon Fighting:

MWF wrote:

Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.

So again, with a one-handed main hand and nothing but light weapons with your off-hand, your penalties are normally -4\-8. Reduce those by 2 and 6 respectively, and you have -2\-2. STR of +4 and a BAB of +1 means attacking with one shield would be at +5; fight with your main hand and your off-hands and you subtract -2 from each attack, putting them at a +3.

Note that the Kasatha is a powerful race, and even in PFS they restrict it heavily. But take that out of the picture and assume a Human Fighter. Here's what he'd look like:

** spoiler omitted **...

WOW... don't f#+# with those things... they will kick your ass! I guess as a DM, I wouldn't allow that particular combination. But ther are a lot of rules that are allowed, but specific combination have been nurfed. So I don't you can honestly say no to the dual shield based upon one creature type metagaming the rules.... do you got another example?

Xaratherus wrote:

Falone wrote:

Just a quick question. Isn't a shield bash an off-hand attack, which by definition -10 to hit, -4 with the TWF feat?

And that's with a light shield, is it not? And if so, doesn't that kinda bring it more inline with the game than out of it?

It's with one heavy shield and 3 light shields. A shield bash with a heavy shield is considered a one-handed weapon (regardless of whether it's primary or off-hand); a shield bash with a light shield is considered a light weapon (again, regardless of main or off-hand).

TWF normally is -6\-10 if you're wielding two one-handed weapons. If you're wielding a one-handed and a light off-hand it's -4\-8. With TWF it reduces it to -2\-2 (reduces main hand penalty by 2 and off-hand penalty by 6).

MWF works just like TWF save that it affects all off-hands. So with one heavy shield and 3 light shields, it means your penalties are -2\-2\-2\-2. With a STR bonus of +4 and a +1 BAB from being a Fighter, that means all attacks are at a +3 to hit.

Sorry, let me do the math.... primary hand BAB + Str = 5; minus 2 = +3. Secondary hand +5; minus 4 = +1. I think you're adding the benifits of MWF and TWF...

I must have missed something.... MWF doesn't work just like TWF, it replaces it. so the primary hand will be -2, but all the other hands will only be +1, as I read it. Not that that's not gross...it is. Personally I'm having a problem understanding how this is a CL1.

Falone wrote:

Just a quick question. Isn't a shield bash an off-hand attack, which by definition -10 to hit, -4 with the TWF feat?

And that's with a light shield, is it not? And if so, doesn't that kinda bring it more inline with the game than out of it?

It's with one heavy shield and 3 light shields. A shield bash with a heavy shield is considered a one-handed weapon (regardless of whether it's primary or off-hand); a shield bash with a light shield is considered a light weapon (again, regardless of main or off-hand).

TWF normally is -6\-10 if you're wielding two one-handed weapons. If you're wielding a one-handed and a light off-hand it's -4\-8. With TWF it reduces it to -2\-2 (reduces main hand penalty by 2 and off-hand penalty by 6).

MWF works just like TWF save that it affects all off-hands. So with one heavy shield and 3 light shields, it means your penalties are -2\-2\-2\-2. With a STR bonus of +4 and a +1 BAB from being a Fighter, that means all attacks are at a +3 to hit.

I must have missed something.... MWF doesn't work just like TWF, it replaces it. so the primary hand will be -2, but all the other hands will only be +1, as I read it. Not that that's not gross...it is. Personally I'm having a problem understanding how this is a CL1.

Xaratherus wrote:

Falone wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

Falone wrote:

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

I went ahead and built this out, actually.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm not sure I followed your creature creation example.

I built a 1st level Kasatha (a naturally four-armed race) Fighter and then outfitted him with a heavy steel shield and 3 light steel shields. Kasatha have a racial feature called Multiarmed which allows them to wield weapons in all four hands, and attack with all four hands in one round.

Shields can be used as weapons to perform shield bash attacks. I took Multiweapon Fighting (requires DEX 13 and 3 or more hands that can make attacks) so that I could attack with weapons in each hand at only a -2 penalty per attack (light shields count as light weapons when used to perform shield bashes). I also took Improved Shield Bash so that I don't lose my shield bonus to AC for bashing with the shield (which is what normally happens).

Doing so (and with racial dodge bonus and horn armor included) netted me a 23 AC and the ability to make 4 shield bash attacks per round, each at a +3 bonus to attack dealing 1d4+4 or 1d3+2 respectively.

Just a quick question. Isn't a shield bash an off-hand attack, which by definition -10 to hit, -4 with the TWF feat?

And that's with a light shield, is it not? And if so, doesn't that kinda bring it more inline with the game than out of it?

Falone wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

Falone wrote:

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

I went ahead and built this out, actually.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm not sure I followed your creature creation example.

I built a 1st level Kasatha (a naturally four-armed race) Fighter and then outfitted him with a heavy steel shield and 3 light steel shields. Kasatha have a racial feature called Multiarmed which allows them to wield weapons in all four hands, and attack with all four hands in one round.

Shields can be used as weapons to perform shield bash attacks. I took Multiweapon Fighting (requires DEX 13 and 3 or more hands that can make attacks) so that I could attack with weapons in each hand at only a -2 penalty per attack (light shields count as light weapons when used to perform shield bashes). I also took Improved Shield Bash so that I don't lose my shield bonus to AC for bashing with the shield (which is what normally happens).

Doing so (and with racial dodge bonus and horn armor included) netted me a 23 AC and the ability to make 4 shield bash attacks per round, each at a +3 bonus to attack dealing 1d4+4 or 1d3+2 respectively.

Just a quick question. Isn't a shield bash an off-hand attack, which by definition -10 to hit, -4 with the TWF feat?

Falone wrote:

Now, let the blade fall.

sincerly,
Dorian Gray

Ahh... I didn't realise we were in Galt.

Guardsmen! Another Chelish sympathiser for the Final Blade!

LOL

Falone wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Here is the General Rule of Bonus stacking, since it has not been quoted yet.

Bonus

Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Now quote to me the rule that says sheilds are specifically exempted from this general rule. Otherwise, ask your GM to give you an exception. If you manage either of these you're good.

I will concede that there is no rule that rises to the level of the absolute statement you seem to require. That being said, using your own choice of source material, I will try to do the next best thing, which is demostrate how the rule does indeed allow it.

Under Armor, it says items or effect. Do not all items produce an effect, whether it's magical or not? The answer is yes, and that effect is the Armor bonus. So why say both then, item and effect? That's because, effect is refering to the type of bonus and item is refering to the...well the item. So you can't put padding under full plate, specifically because THE items are producing the same effect.
Whereas shield not only leaves out the disqualifing "item", it goes on to say "Other" shield effect. Not shield effect, but OTHER shield effects. Which I read as something "other" than itself.

I'm not going to try to follow your reasoning all the way through but I will finish it since you stopped short. And both of these so-called effects produce what? A shield bonus, which still leaves you with the problem of two bonuses of the same type that can not stack....

It's OK if you don't follow my reasoning, you listen my case, although I'm a bit dismayed that you didn't follow the reason all the way through. change is sometime hard. But thatnks for weighing in, at least you heard the argument.

Falone wrote:

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

I went ahead and built this out, actually.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm confused, do shields grant extra attacks? How does a 1st level get four attacks?

Falone wrote:

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

I went ahead and built this out, actually.

** spoiler omitted **...

I'm not sure I followed your creature creation example.

I don't see the exclusion of a single word as being 'specific' enough to override what's effectively one of the core balancing rules of the game, really.

To me, it seems more likely that the designers just never really expected the corner case of 'dual wield shields' to come up. After all, it's not a widely-used fighting style, in reality or in fiction; you see historical battles where the shield is used as as an off-hand weapon, and you see books, movies, and comics where you even find people using a shield as a primary weapon, but I can't think of any case off the top of my head where someone fights with two shields.

Just to point out how potentially broken this could be balance-wise: A kasatha (a naturally four-armed race) could wield four +5 heavy shields, and his shields alone would be granting him +21 to his AC.

And one last point, before I accepth the guillotine of rule's judgement. It's not just the conspicous absense of the word "item" that I base my little loop hole on, but also the words "similar' and "other". I will admit that had only two of the three elements been present, I could not make a good case. But they do, and with in close proximity of each other. Now, let the blade fall.

Xaratherus wrote:

I don't see the exclusion of a single word as being 'specific' enough to override what's effectively one of the core balancing rules of the game, really.

To me, it seems more likely that the designers just never really expected the corner case of 'dual wield shields' to come up. After all, it's not a widely-used fighting style, in reality or in fiction; you see historical battles where the shield is used as as an off-hand weapon, and you see books, movies, and comics where you even find people using a shield as a primary weapon, but I can't think of any case off the top of my head where someone fights with two shields.

Just to point out how potentially broken this could be balance-wise: A kasatha (a naturally four-armed race) could wield four +5 heavy shields, and his shields alone would be granting him +21 to his AC.

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

Just so you know, I'm a player, all I'm looking to do is make a dual wielding shield cleric....no attacking. I'm not looking to unblance a game...

I don't see the exclusion of a single word as being 'specific' enough to override what's effectively one of the core balancing rules of the game, really.

To me, it seems more likely that the designers just never really expected the corner case of 'dual wield shields' to come up. After all, it's not a widely-used fighting style, in reality or in fiction; you see historical battles where the shield is used as as an off-hand weapon, and you see books, movies, and comics where you even find people using a shield as a primary weapon, but I can't think of any case off the top of my head where someone fights with two shields.

Just to point out how potentially broken this could be balance-wise: A kasatha (a naturally four-armed race) could wield four +5 heavy shields, and his shields alone would be granting him +21 to his AC.

And I agree with your example, infact, I cited a four armed character in one of my example. but just so we are clear. I think your example proves my point, rather than your point of metagaming. Sure, they could wield four shields, but that's all they could do. In the case of a 1st level character, he could have an AC of 27... but that's all he would have, no attack what so ever. That would be akin to a 1st level fighter taking TWF and Power Attack....which would be fine, if he could hit anything.

Here is the General Rule of Bonus stacking, since it has not been quoted yet.

Bonus

Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.

The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.

Now quote to me the rule that says sheilds are specifically exempted from this general rule. Otherwise, ask your GM to give you an exception. If you manage either of these you're good.

I will concede that there is no rule that rises to the level of the absolute statement you seem to require. That being said, using your own choice of source material, I will try to do the next best thing, which is demostrate how the rule does indeed allow it.

Under Armor, it says items or effect. Do not all items produce an effect, whether it's magical or not? The answer is yes, and that effect is the Armor bonus. So why say both then, item and effect? That's because, effect is refering to the type of bonus and item is refering to the...well the item. So you can't put padding under full plate, specifically because THE items are producing the same effect.
Whereas shield not only leaves out the disqualifing "item", it goes on to say "Other" shield effect. Not shield effect, but OTHER shield effects. Which I read as something "other" than itself.

Falone wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Falone wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It provides no additional bonus (though I'd say you would get the enhancements--the bonuses don't stack, but they're still there. Ask your GM!). It does, however, look kinda awesome.

The rules for armor and shield bonus stacking are not simple. If the rule(s) said, "you cannot stack shield or armor bonus." Then ya, it would be simple; but it doesn't. The rules give two conditions for what sources the stacking come from, one for armor and one for shield, and while they are similar, they are not the same, and that is my point. Also, I will challenge every face value, especially when it’s a closed book.

The general rule is that two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Shields give a shield bonus to armor class, you can not stack two shield bonuses. And again like many would be munchkins you forget another basic principle, the rules aren't about what you can't do, they are about what you're allowed to do. You have to find a specific rule that contravenes the general rule of stacking bonuses if you want to stack the protection power of two shields.

You are incorrect sir, according to the rules, the shield bonus does not stack with OTHER effects that grant a shield bonus. Please explain "...Other effects that Grant..." You see, a second shield does not grant an "Other effect"... it grants the same effect. Which, may seem like spliting hairs, execpt that,in reference to Armor, it actually states that you can't stack bonus from "ITEMS".

Same effects do not stack. You can't cast bull strength on yourself twice, and get two strength boots. You can't wear two sets of armor and get both armor bonuses. Where in tarnation do you see that shields are exempt from this?

I'll tell you where I see it. "The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus." It specifically says ITEMS for armor. But under shield bonus, it DOES NOT SAY items, only effect. Do you not see that?

The search feature is your friend. There are lots and lots of threads on dual shielding. Search for them and read them. They will answer the vast majority of your questions.

I have, and still, are reading the threads. All the arguments against two shields, seem to be just one argument, and that is the base rule of bonus stacking, as applied to shields and armor. I'm re-asking the question in the context/frame of the difference in which the rules talk about the bonus, in specific, for armor and shield separate. I feel that the rules don't say, that you can't stack bonus from two shields, which they clearly spell out you can't do for armor, that you just can't stack two different shield effects.

Falone wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It provides no additional bonus (though I'd say you would get the enhancements--the bonuses don't stack, but they're still there. Ask your GM!). It does, however, look kinda awesome.

The rules for armor and shield bonus stacking are not simple. If the rule(s) said, "you cannot stack shield or armor bonus." Then ya, it would be simple; but it doesn't. The rules give two conditions for what sources the stacking come from, one for armor and one for shield, and while they are similar, they are not the same, and that is my point. Also, I will challenge every face value, especially when it’s a closed book.

The general rule is that two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Shields give a shield bonus to armor class, you can not stack two shield bonuses. And again like many would be munchkins you forget another basic principle, the rules aren't about what you can't do, they are about what you're allowed to do. You have to find a specific rule that contravenes the general rule of stacking bonuses if you want to stack the protection power of two shields.

You are incorrect sir, according to the rules, the shield bonus does not stack with OTHER effects that grant a shield bonus. Please explain "...Other effects that Grant..." You see, a second shield does not grant an "Other effect"... it grants the same effect. Which, may seem like spliting hairs, execpt that,in reference to Armor, it actually states that you can't stack bonus from "ITEMS".

Falone wrote:

I keep seeing how everyone says that shield bonus does not stack, sighting the rules of stacking. I challenge that preconceived notion.

Challenge it all you like. The rules are quite simple. With the exception of dodge, and untyped bonuses, bonuses of the same type do not stack, simple, period, end of story. You want redress from that rule, ask your GM. If you're playing PFS, the book is closed on this matter.

It provides no additional bonus (though I'd say you would get the enhancements--the bonuses don't stack, but they're still there. Ask your GM!). It does, however, look kinda awesome.

The rules for armor and shield bonus stacking are not simple. If the rule(s) said, "you cannot stack shield or armor bonus." Then ya, it would be simple; but it doesn't. The rules give two conditions for what sources the stacking come from, one for armor and one for shield, and while they are similar, they are not the same, and that is my point. Also, I will challenge every face value, especially when it’s a closed book.

I keep seeing how everyone says that shield bonus does not stack, sighting the rules of stacking. I challenge that preconceived notion. I wish to state my case, and it to be judge on its merits, not dogma.
The rule used for denying stacking shield bonus is this one:
"Each type of armor grants an armor bonus to Armor Class, while shields grant a shield bonus to Armor Class. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn't stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus."
The logic is simple, Armor bonus don’t stack, shield bonus don’t stack.
I say that is incorrect, and here is my argument as to why shields do stack.

It says that for suits of armor, “...doesn't stack with OTHER EFFECTS...(i.e. non physical armor bonus such as spells) or items (physical items)THAT grant armor bonus.”
In practical use: You cannot wear a suit of armor and bracers of defense and gain both bonuses. And you can’t wear two suits of armor, say padded inside full plate, and combine bonuses.

However, for shields, it says “Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus." Please note that it does not say items as it does for armor. In this case “similarly” refers to the stacking effects and not the source. Two shields are not providing two “other” (different) effects granting the same bonus, they are the same item granting the same effect. And unlike armor, which specifically prevents items from stacking, shields have no restriction because it does not mentioned items; hence the use of the word “similar”. You can use two shields unlike two armors.
In practical use: you cannot stack the shield bonus from bucklers and the bonus from two-weapon defense, because they are both shield bonus from different,"other", sources. But you can stack the bonus from two shields.
In addition, I’ll go one further; in the event of a character obtaining a wish (something my DM never hands out), that character could conceivably wish for two sets of arms. One set for dual wielding, and one set for dual shielding.

Falone wrote:

GM_Solspiral wrote:

-Magma sharpening stone- cool idea, slight alteration (limiting uses perday) made it in my Kingmaker game as a gift from Magnar Varn.

I believe that was my submission, and ya, after I posted it, I realized I didn't have a duration. I really thought I'd make the top 32, but after reading the other submission, I realized now that I should have added some visual text for flavor. Although I'm particularly pround of the hit/miss usage and that only a Druid could/can make them. Man, I was really looking foward to the next step.

Sadly the Druid-only limitation was the dealbreaker for me, I liked the item up until that line. Wasn't too fond of the weird "if you miss by less than X it's counted as a hit for duration" either. Seemed a bit too bookkeeping-heavy (as well as requiring the GM to tell the player the enemy's AC, or have to answer a question every round they missed >_>)

LOL... never even occured to me about the mechanics issue; I'm a player, and more of a role player at that. How it would add work to both players and/or DM just didn't cross my mind. I was grooving on the idea that having a magic item that only Druids could make would work well in a "who dun it" story, and in my mind eye, the weapon striking, wheater it hit or not, would spark and wear away the magic. I'm such a dweeb...

-Magma sharpening stone- cool idea, slight alteration (limiting uses perday) made it in my Kingmaker game as a gift from Magnar Varn.

I believe that was my submission, and ya, after I posted it, I realized I didn't have a duration. I really thought I'd make the top 32, but after reading the other submission, I realized now that I should have added some visual text for flavor. Although I'm particularly pround of the hit/miss usage and that only a Druid could/can make them. Man, I was really looking foward to the next step.

This seems like an old discussion (Vicious is untyped damage), but I'm dealing with it now, and I'd like to add my 2 cents.
If a weapon with Vicious properties enters a sphere of Anti-Magic; would it still work? If the answer is no, then the Viciousness is magic based and the damage can be moderated with armor with "Invulnerability" on it. If, the Vicious does still work in an Anti-Magic shell,then can not the damage the wielder takes be moderated by normal DR?