Sadurian's page

In that case, if your GM is alright with 3.5 conversion you might consider a feat that makes Healing really potent.

(Converted to Pathfinder from Dungeons & Dragons 3.5)
Augment Healing
Prerequisite: Heal 1 Rank
Benefit: add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed
by any Conjuration [healing] spell you cast.

I've not run into many GM's that disapprove of the feat in standard game play.

I may try that, thanks. However, it appears that some people are getting upset about my involvement here so I shall make a dignified withdrawal.

The merciful healer is a nice archetype since it has the ability to reroll 1s or choose to remove conditions. People prefer the Life oracle due to see its ability to use Life Link (basically free healing per round) and to have a higher channel per some races' FCB. This and more crucial spells per day helps out ( though the versatility of the cleric spell slots can be crucial at times, especially if you have open slots)

I see the spell advantage (which is even more extreme because the Cloistered Cleric actually loses a spell slot per level per day!) but I see the Life Link as a dangerous game. Not sure I like the idea of taking the damage as opposed to healing it!

If I were looking to be an undead fighting Cleric then yes, the lack of anti-undead channelling would be problematic. Luckily, however, it is a non-issue for my concept.

Thanks for pointing out why others prefer the Oracle. Sometimes you wonder if you are missing something huge and obvious that everyone else is aware of.

If the campaign deals with fighting the undead as mentioned before the merciful healer will not be able to harm them with Channel.

I'm fine with that. The concept is 'Healer', and the fact that the Cleric is the best class to hang the concept on is purely coincidental (as in, I'm not actually looking to play a Cleric who can heal, I'm looking to play a Healer).

Also as I remember the rules on Traits, one cannot have a trait from the same category so one of the Faith Traits would need to be swapped out.

As mentioned, I'm aware of that but I doubt that my GM will mind me sneaking it in.

Unless the Rogue is looking to be a Sneak-Attack specialist, he/she might consider Multi-classing as you progress. Rogues are possibly the best for MC because they are, at the core, skill-monkeys. The monk is in almost as good a position to be the party scout.

If he/she wants to do Sneak Attack damage, however, that won't work, but in a party full of maximum-hurty types, the sneak damage isn't as important (except, perhaps, to the player!).

My advice would be to talk to the players and ask them whether they want to be spending much of their gold on potions and wands, or whether someone might reconsider their class and go for a spellcaster/buffer.

Without wishing to hijack the thread, I am planning a dedicated healer character. The concept is that of a sheltered pacifist priestess who decided (for whatever reason) to join an adventuring party. Hopefully any discussion will also help the OP as it is a concept looking for 'the best healer'.

Leaving aside the mechanical weakness in running a non-combat pacifist for RPing reasons, I have settled on the Merciful Healer Cleric archetype, probably conjoined with the Cloistered Cleric archetype if my GM agrees that the required domain specialisation is close enough between the two archetypes to allow it. I will also have to persuade the GM to allow two starting traits from the same group (Faith), but my GM is laid-back enough to allow such bending of the RAW.

I looked at the Hedge Witch, Life Oracle and some other ideas, but the Merciful Healer seems hands-down the best healing option.

For 1st level I've planned:
Drawbacks: Naive, -2 AC/CMD versus Improvised Weapons or Dirty Tricks.

Trait 1: Blessed Touch [Faith], +1 point when channelling or casting cure spells.
Trait 2: Devoted Healer [Faith], Take 20 on Heal skill and cure an additional 1d4 points.
Trait 3: Battlefield Surgeon [Religion], One additional use/day of Heal on deadly wounds.

Feat 1: War Blessing (2/day, use War Priest blessing) Healing & Glory
Feat 2: Brew Potion

I'd be interested to know why nobody else has suggested the Merciful Healer, am I missing a critical disadvantage within the build that means the Life Oracle is better? I appreciate that not everyone wants a lightly-armoured, poorly armed character (who's not an arcane spell-flinger), but as a party healer I don't see a better option.

I believe that RAW for Druid/Ranger animal companions it is the GM who has the final say on the companion's behaviour as it is, technically, an NPC. If you want it do anything beyond an instinctive reaction then you will need to train it for that behaviour.

However, the best (my interpretation of 'best' may differ from yours) GMs I have gamed with always allow the animal companion to be essentially under the complete control of the player, aside from in the odd and rare situation where it the GM decides that the animal reacts differently. This is generally for story narrative or to disallow 'auto-telepathy' style control.

The animal companion is a class feature, not an added extra. It is no more reasonable (in my eyes) for the GM to have complete control over your companion than it would be for him to have control over which spells a wizard casts. That said, it can easily be abused.

If you play your animal companion in a reasonable and balanced manner then you might expect the GM to allow you to get on with it. If you try to make the companion into a PC-clone with full shared sensory input and priorities, expect your GM to start over-ruling your control.

As a player I'd like to have the option. I suffer from more character concepts than campaigns to play them, so 'having' to play a new character is no great hardship. I would prefer that death is not final, but that it is not insignificant either - the death constitutes a major event.

Our GM is pretty good at scattering the appropriate scrolls or other deux ex machine without it being too jarring.

Rise of the Runelords is fairly brutal in places, and we've had three PC deaths so far, two being my character. My first PC death I was happy to let stand as it was suitably heroic and totally in the manner to which she would have been happy. The second I didn't feel was a great death and played a 'stand-in' mercenary until a Raise Dead was arranged. The other PC death was a straight Raise Dead as the player liked her character too much to let it go.

Pathfinder doesn't model progressive penalties from damage and certainly not for things like penalties from having arrows stuck in a victim. The damage system, as inherited from (A)D&D, is perhaps the least realistic aspect of the game(!!).

As for bringing in your own rules, just how realistic do you want to get?

1. Treat it just as cosmetic.
2. Apply Dex-penalties for someone with arrows sticking out if them.
3. Impose 1-point 'bleeding' penalties for anyone having suffered more than 10hp damage from arrows, but still fighting.
4. As above but apply the penalty for each arrow that causes over 4hp damage (the lesser damage considered to have been grazes and slashes).

etc, etc.

The problem with imposing such penalties is that you might need to extend it to other wounds. In that case you're making a major overhaul of the damage system which, while great in some systems, perhaps doesn't suit Pathfinder.

I've played several Evil characters (including one Pathfinder character who was CE). They have all been happy to fulfil party goals and were generally party-friendly. They had different attitudes to most of the party but that's where some of the fun of role-playing kicks in.

The point is that Evil characters do not have to be disruptive. Nor are they one-dimensional skulking murderers, they can be fully-rounded interesting characters who work well within an adventuring party of different alignments.

As for the OPs situation, I think his GM showed a poor grasp of what Neutral means. It is not 'Good-lite', it is Neutral. It embraces both good and evil acts to further the character's major goals. Do the GMs with issues over Evil also pronounce on Chaotic characters adventuring with Lawful, or make Chaotic characters move towards Lawful if they choose to temporarily obey the rules? I think it shows poor interpretation.

My Chaotic Neutral Druid released all the animals in a city zoo, causing several deaths (of both humans and animals). She follows the Green Faith and her main alignment focus is the 'Rule of Nature' or 'Law of the Jungle'. Killing a handler torturing an animal would be well within her moral outlook, although tinged with a certain disdain that the gorilla had allowed himself to be captured in the first place.

My character concept is a Dhampir noblewoman Rogue/White-Haired Witch/Noble Scion.

She is a (somewhat reluctant) blood-drinking fanged Dhampir whose favourite tactic is to appear harmless (Bluff, Sneak, etc) then Sneak Attack with free Grapple and subsequently Pin with her hair, followed by a Sneak Attack fang bite on the pinned victim.

Assuming all rolls succeed, the first (hopefully surprise) attack will be hair damage + Sneak Attack + free Grapple. The second round should then be converting the Grapple into a Pin. At that point it becomes very one-sided and all subsequent rounds can consist of fang-based Sneak-Attacks as the opponent is denied Dex to AC and cannot move or attack until he escapes. Blood everywhere. Burp. Much hand-wringing and moralising.

As the concept relies on both multi-classing and a strong Sneak Attack, however, I wondered if anyone had come across a Feat to allow the Witch (and Noble Scion) levels to count as Rogue levels for the purpose of Sneak Attack. It is a bit of a long shot, but similar level substitution Feats are available for the primary powers of other classes. I have searched through the Feats but these things have a habit of hiding in unusual places, having titles that don't make them easy to spot.

I don't know what you're implying...

<happily feeds more insects into the machine>

Against enemy groups of three or four I'm usually fine. When they get more than that, however, my attacks seem to get bogged down in some sort of combat-glue.

I will target an enemy and tap the appropriate key, only to be subject to a few rounds of attacks before the attack has any effect on the target. It is worse when I am attacked by mixed melee and missile and want to switch target to the melee enemy. I try to click or Tab but the selected enemy is still the missile user. I then go for the missile spell to attack him, hoping to knock him out before I'm cut down by Mr Melee.

No such luck.

I am informed that he is out of range. I assume that the server now has the melee opponent targeted but no, he has taken no damage. Some random innocent in a random dimension has apparently just been hit by that last attack.

In the struggle to target and make the attacks, my opponents turn me into mince. Even drinking Cure potions doesn't help, because the potion doesn't take effect until after I die. Great, not only am I dead but I have just wasted a Cure potion.

It came to a head just now. To recover my husk I had to fight the same bandit group four times, each time with the same result - death by server/connection lag. By the time I picked up my gear it was hardly worth recovering.

Now I may not have the fastest broadband connection or the highest-spec computer, but neither are exactly slouches and happily cope with every other MMORPG I play.

Does anyone else suffer this issue?

My character is a witch archetype and I've decided to do a real pick'n'mix with skills.

Mainly Wizard, but also Rogue (for Stealth) and Fighter (just because I wanted to be able to handle a variety of weapons for flexibility). I will also be taking a major dip into Druid when it arrives. The major emphasis, however, is in Apothecary and Alchemist. Nothing says 'witch' to me like being able to create lotions and potions.

If two creatures can have statistically fertile offsprings, they are from the same species. Question is, can you have babies with a troll ?

More to the point, would you want to?

How do contraceptives work against a physiology that can regenerate, I wonder?

I don't think Pyron is a troll.

That avatar looks distinctly troll-like.

To quote Python;
"I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch."
"But you are dressed as one."

That actually makes a lot of sense. Even more so since many crafters will probably establish themselves at a single settlement for most of the time.

I've started a paper-type book detailing things like hexes with given common resources, items I deposit in banks (and put up on the AH), and so on. I'm sure that's not really what the developers intended but there is so much information I feel the need to keep track of that a written record was the obvious answer.

I guess you polish the grass whilst feeding the pony?

Maybe it's down to different timezones, but I doubt that more than about one hundred are playing when I'm on. It's possible that they are all hiding in the hexes where I'm not and don't use the chat box, but from what I see there aren't many playing when I am.

I'd rather other problems were looked at first. Anything that reduces performance (like extra graphics) should wait until the basic game functions are fixed, and players have the option of turning their graphics settings up or down.

Yes, a good-looking game might attract players, but they'll soon leave if that lovely-looking game crashes and bugs at every opportunity. More seriously, they'll then share their poor experiences with others online and the game will attract a negative reputation.

I think GW would rather have a review that reads - 'good game but graphics still need polishing' than, 'lovely graphics but the game is rubbish'.

Yes, landscape graphics are important to the final game, but so are plenty of other features. I think playability and internal mechanics should be a higher priority than cosmetics.

Which raises the question: what is a dutch oven called in Golarion?

And is there such a thing as haute cuisine?

Looks like I shall be heading to Alderwag then.

Hmmmm. Shopping.....

I believe a major balancer for players would be if the werewolf form was essentially a separate character. All its XP accumulation and any training would not count towards the main 'normal' character.

Effectively, you'd be throwing away XP each month, something that would put off many players. Your werewolf form should not be able to identify individuals so there should be no PvP 'were-griefing' or similar retribution raids, and you would be tagged as a legitimate target for any and every player (possibly including other werewolves). Werewolves should not be able to loot and will have no access to their 'normal' side's powers. None of the killing will benefit anything but the werewolf side of your character, and that is something you only have access to for a couple of days a month, and then only for more random killing.

Now whilst the gory blood-fest of the werewolf's combat power might be fun to indulge in at first, it will quickly pall and the condition will become a bind, a curse in fact. I foresee quite a few werewolf players quietly seeking out a cure for their condition once they have realised that running psychotically through the countryside is not actually as fun as it first appeared.

So, once the blood-fest psychos have left, what are left are those for whom the werewolf option is a legitimate character concept choice. Those for whom the lycanthropy is a valid RPing element of their character and for whom the disadvantages are outweighed by the fun of role-playing with such a curse.

Apart from anything else (although most assuredly not my angle or 'scene') playing a werewolf will appeal to those potential players who are 'furries' and like to play animal characters!

Frankly, any schtick or lure to entice new players can only be a good thing, be it ever so small or ever so ignorable by those who do not wish to participate.

More broadly, the popularity of games like White Wolf's 'Werewolf' and so forth cannot be ignored. No, Werewolf is not Pathfinder, but then PFO is not really Pathfinder either. The Golarian multiverse contains werewolves (and similar shapeshifters - I'd love to play a werecat of some description) and is always subject to change. There is no good reason that I can see why introducing a few PC-controlled lycanthropes would be bad for the game - so long as balance is maintained for other players and for the characters themselves.

I don't see 'Pathfinder doesn't have werewolves as a playable race' as a valid argument against having them in PFO. Pathfinder has plenty of legitimate player-race and class options that are unlikely to ever become part of PFO, and indeed having player-controlled characters infected by lycanthropy is an option presented in the canon PnP books, even if it isn't a suggested starting race.

I'm effectively playing a werewolf character in PnP Pathfinder at the moment. I play a Okami True Primitive Barbarian/Druid/Nature Warden. The Okami is a 3rd Party wolfen version of the Kitsune and allows hybrid and human forms, with wolf and dire wolf forms bought as racial Feats (which I have done).

The rest of the party are agreeably confused as my normal form (Druid shapeshifting complicates matters no end), but I have agreed with the GM that my 'base' form is actually that of the dire wolf. Instead of a human who turns into a wolf I am a wolf who turns into a human (sometimes).

Once GW have built the basic framework to allow shapeshifting for druids and polymorphing wizards, the opportunities to introduce other shapeshifting concepts can get going. Hopefully, those with a strong player-base support and sketched out ideas will be taken up.

I have to say that this is the first time I've encountered this thread, not being as avid a forum-follower as I would like (real life sucks).

I love the idea, though, and Malaficia (my nature-orientated druid/witch) would like to sign up to your newsletter. If she were a lycanthrope, which obviously she's not. I mean, haha, all that disruption once a month is ... um... "woman's trouble" and nothing to do with lycanthropy. Obviously.

My two pennyworth is that a changed lycanthrope should not be able to distinguish one member of a race from another, should only have a very limited 'pack' of acquaintances with which she is comfortable, and should be forced to unequip all gear once changed.

On the flipside, she should be a powerful ambush/pack predator and accumulate a separate strand of experience from the human form. Obviously Werewolf trainers would be rather hard to find, so being able to gain wolfen skills and abilities might be tricky, necessitating visiting CN/CE-friendly druidic trainers during the full moon.

No cross-over of XP or abilities should be allowed, the character should literally become a different and wholly distinct person/animal.

The upside? It would be something different, something liberating and something fun to play out. If that isn't enough, then don't take the Curse!

I had exactly the same problem. I emailed the support people and Bonny put it right by creating my account for me. I suggest that you email them with all your Paizo information (email address, Paizo log-in name and so on - not password!), and the username you'd like to use for the Goblinworks account.

In my case it took a couple of days to fix but my participation in the game is proof that it got fixed in the end.

I'm all for a cooking and eating system that treats food as a necessary fuel instead of a magical boost. We've spoken about this before, many, many months ago.

Ideally, the quality of food you eat, and where you eat it, would be linked to some sort of social mechanic. If Sir Oswald dePosh is seen regularly eating baked potatoes at Ye Olde Spud-u-Like, he'd lose social standing, whereas Arthur the Adventurer's regular visits to the best restaurant in town should benefit him somehow.

Such a mechanic is pie in the sky in an MMORPG, of course (hehe).

So yes, consider this a vote for non-magical food and drink.

I'm also hoping for magical and non-magical potions, of course.

I avoid the whole area of secret assassinations when GMing, no matter what system I use. If a sniper or assassin is required for the plot then I'll make sure that the first strike is a failure and turn it into a hunter-killer chase.

For a GM, using a secret assassin is too easy. It's 'rocks fall because you didn't know the roof was going to collapse', or 'the assassins planted a bomb in that tavern so you're all dead'.

One more point to consider when discussing potentially buffing a single party member all day is that Bards can do much the same thing with their own class powers, but to the entire party and without requiring the loss of their Move action each turn.

Okay, instead of having two rolls you usually get to add a bonus, but (speaking as someone who can easily roll 2d20 and get under five in total) the bonus is often more help than the reroll.

The Witch's Cackle ability isn't that much different on balance to the Bardic Inspire.

I can't help thinking that cramming all those targ... people into a 20' radius is crying out for being attacked with an AoE spell or weapon.

Uncut diamonds. Not exactly pretty.

http://images.bidorbuy.co.za/user_images/801/368801_090923152421_1.63_diamo nds.jpg

(Remove space in 'diamond' to see link)

Using a shield in Pathfinder is a presented as being passive so I doubt you'd lose Shield AC. You might not drop what you're carrying, but you'd be unable to effectively use it.

No AoOs, and no threatening. They're laughing too much to be a threat to anyone in range.

Yup, diamonds are single atom-based constructs - they are carbon and carbon alone.

Stones are generally (always?) a combination of minerals, but diamonds are not.

In the game, I would be very careful before allowing any sort of 'gem building' to occur. The potential effects on the world economy could be devastating.

I wondered when the 'you're using ad hominem' argument would crop up, but I'm still a little sad to see it arrive. It's a little like Godwin - it tends to suggest that the real arguments have exhausted themselves and people are resorting to just getting pissy. It is also generally used, as here, incorrectly.

For reference, an 'ad hominem' argument is a personal attack that suggests the opponent's views are invalid because of factors completely unconnected with his ability to present the case.

Were I to say opponent A delights in using silly characters it would not be an ad-hominem because the argument is about silly characters.

Were I to say that opponent B is smelly and lives in his mother's basement, it would be an ad-hominem because those factors do not affect his argument about running silly characters.

Video 1 and At 40 seconds and 1 minute 50s and a third for good luck.

Very entertaining, but those are not shields.

Eat your words. Eat them up. With two shields as dishes.

Third, only a few kung fu systems ever taught this weapon

It does not, however, prove that any fighting organisation 'regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields', which was the challenge. I'm sure that I can link to all sorts of weird martial arts styles that utilise peculiar tools, from flutes to fans and garden implements. None of it means that the weapon style is a serious fighting prospect.

As I said back at the start, a player with a good background story (i.e. not, 'because I get a cheesy advantage') would probably get away with playing such a character.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that kung-fu cannot be used to fight, but it is not exactly the first choice of technique when in battle. Knowing how to fight with a musical instrument means you can fight, but if that is your primary weapon then you'll likely to chopped to pieces by someone with a 'real' weapon. What I am looking for is evidence that the fighting style was good enough that it was used in real, deadly, combat. That's the real test for any weapon or style, not sports or leisure applications.

Sadurian wrote:

As for the historical standard being 'goodrightfun', that isn't what I said at all.

Yes it is. It totally is. The ENTIRE COMPLAINT is about two shields being BadWrongFun.

If you and your table want to include twin shield wielding fighters then all power to you. You can have chicken player races and singing horses, it's your game and your table. Our group wouldn't want them as we value the thematic aspect of our games too much to let such ahistorical rule exploits creep in.

As I've said before, each table/group has a different tolerance to such things. I am not trying to stop from playing your favourite 'kewl karacter', whether he has two shields or two bunches of flowers as his build. I am saying that it wouldn't be welcome in our group.

And if you check upthread there are historical examples of legit armies using twin shields. I mean that's the real joke here:

No there aren't. John Jacob's challenge has still to be met. A random photo of a guy carrying two shields, even dancing with them, does not show that 'legit armies used twin shields'.

Sadurian wrote:

The fact that there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields speaks volumes.

You are incorrect, and it would fantastic if you could come to realise this.

I would welcome any evidence that I am incorrect. Not, 'my mate did this when LARPing', not posed photographs that are probably dancing, not weapon-shield combinations, not twinned defensive weapons like jitte, and not modern martial arts techniques that even describe themselves as 'unique'.

Some that will invalidate my point that 'there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields'.

My apologies, Sadurian, but I don't value "mob rule" in role-playing games,

You call majority voting 'mob-rule', I call it democracy....

I think you may also have missed the deliberate care with which I chose the hypothetical players' names; they're all unisex, and so they could be male or female players. Aside from that, Jamie wanting to play a girl going against Pat's, Chris'...

It's actually completely irrelevant. Gender does not make an opinion more or less valid.

I assume you can merge a DT OE account with an existing EE one by contacting the relevant people at GW?

There is nothing objectively wrong with a dual shield user, a spiked chain warrior, or a dire flail. Trying to say something is silly because it doesn't match your likes is a nonstarter.

Well given that finding something silly is also subjective, I would disagree.

In his example, it's not the player imposing on the others, it's the GM.

I count the GM as a player in this instance. He is there to play the game as much as those on the other side of the screen.

My point stands, however. If a table of five has the GM imposing his values and ideas on the other four against their will, then it is just as bad and unacceptable.

A real combat style is not realistic?

There is a difference between a real fighting style and a fighting style that is a realistic fighting proposition. Boxing is a realistic fighting style but no army would expect its warriors to go out onto the battlefield armed only with a pair of boxing gloves.

IRL, there are no dragons. And if there were, they wouldn't be able to fly. In real life, a rogue doesn't have a 5% chance of surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero completely unscathed.

However, dragons are an existing part of medieval mythology. They do exist, but only in historical myth. Magic and wizards are also part of that mythology. The game as written is not supposed to be mirroring reality, but the mythology of medieval fantasy.

If the rest of the group is okay with that... Yes. It also applies.

No, you're sidestepping the point. The disruptive character concept is one that the rest of the group do not agree with. If I ask whether a disruptive character concept would be accepted at your table, it is not an answer to say, 'yes, as long as it isn't disruptive'.

This doesn't make Jamie the special snowflake for wanting to play a girl, despite the fact that the other players don't want female characters in the game. It's not against the rules. It doesn't exploit other players. Sam has a responsibility to tell Chris, Pat and Alex that they're going to have to stop being sexist and "suck it up" if they want to play, because Jamie is allowed to have fun, too.

Well we differ here. If the majority of the players (and I include the GM) are so set against a player's choice that it will spoil their enjoyment, I do not see that the player has the right to impose his will on the others. Personally I would find another group to play in in that particular situation. What you describe, however, is not one against the majority, but a 50:50 split.

I have left gaming groups where the gaming style is so contrary to my own that I wasn't having fun. I didn't demand that everyone plays to my particular way of doing things.

That goes for playing characters not your own gender, characters that grossly violate the game's theme, or two-dimensional characters whose only quality is they must be better than everyone else. Every style has a group that will accept it, but it is not for you to impose your style on a group that rejects it.

Try the Bard archetype, Archaeologist.

You'll get all the knowledge fun of the Bard, plus plenty of crossover skills and talents from the Rogue. You lose the ability to Inspire, however, so you would need to concentrate on non-magical CHA interaction skills.

I like to have fun.

My fun may be different from your fun, but it's no less valid for values of "fun" so long as it doesn't spoil your fun by exploiting you as a player.!

I guess that would also apply to your table should a player design a six-shooter-armed outlaw for a Lord of the Rings Game, a nerdy computer programmer for a bronze-age game or a fey swashbuckler for a game of gritty post-apocalypse survival?

Yes, the game is there for fun. However, it is not exclusively for any single player to have fun at the expense of the game, being the rest of the players and the GM. Players who want to be special snowflakes and demand to play characters that the rest of the group object to are not entitled to get their own way. Not at our table, anyhow.

Musashi must have discovered the same exploit. He did that in real life.

Mushashi wasn't exploiting a broken rule and the player in question wasn't using a bokken because he was deliberately handicapping himself. In real life, a steel sword is generally more effective than a wooden one.

There's literally video. Of a fighting style. That uses two shields. In this very thread.

And there's, like, literally, like, my point that an obscure modern martial art does not, like, make a style a realistic fighting proposition, literally like.

There are fighting styles that utilise spades and all sorts of other improvised weapons - does that make a warrior armed with a spoon any less ridiculous? No.

And who cares if soldiers actually used it? Did soldiers actually used the Spiked Chain? How many Soldiers showed up with Scythes (and not Scythes that had been modified to polearms)? How many Orc Double Axes have you seen in history? Seriously, having an opinion is fine, but your argument "historical standard" is completely invalid.

You may have missed the piece where I said that I'd happily throw out many Pathfinder weapons, or where I mentioned that some weapons are fine despite not being used by soldiers in battle.

And no, my argument is not 'invalid'. It is simply a different opinion and gaming style to yours.

I'd happily lose plenty of the weapons in the game. Not sure why you'd need to get rid of the exotic weapons, though. Most are perfect normal weapons that happen to offer a mechanical advantage which is balanced with the 'Exotic Proficiency' requirement.

As for the historical standard being 'goodrightfun', that isn't what I said at all. Whips weren't used historically by armies in combat, but the whip is a perfectly acceptable weapon to use in the game. Shields are used in the game and are fine. Using two shields, however, is a triumph of cheese and rules exploitation, and would be treated as such at our table unless the player came up with an excellent reason why his character decided that specialising in fighting with two shields was a better idea than using a proper weapon and shield combination.

We'd mock it just like any other rules exploitation that has a poor rational explanation.

As an example, we had a Fantasy Hero campaign back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (in the 1est Edition days). Hero uses both killing/lethal damage and stun damage, and it is possible to realistically win combats simply by knocking your opponent unconscious. One player suddenly found a rules exploit/mistake which was that, by using a wooden katana instead of a steel one, he could actually inflict more stun damage and was consequently more dangerous. From then on he only carried a wooden sword. That's what I call exploiting the rules at the expense of in-game common sense.

My view is that a character regularly wielding two shields would be laughed at. He certainly would at our table. By me, for a start. He would need to come up with a really good backstory to avoid ridicule, and any pointing out cheesy rule exploits would make things worse.

Rather than painstaking search obscure martial arts and 'well I did it when LARPing so it must be true', I would encourage you to look to historical warriors. Being a professional soldier makes your choice of weapon rather more important than someone who is trying something out to see it is possible.

The fact that there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields speaks volumes.