Teks's page

Ok I got bored fast.

I still didn't like the shielded fighter personally, but he could fit in as a hybrid between these two builds. I built both builds to level 6 which is high enough to show their features, but low enough to leave some to the imagination.

Phalanx Fighter-
The phalanx fighter keeps the enemy away from weaker characters. He uses a tower shield, and traits like bodyguard to keep his allies safe from attack. With his lucerne hammer at the ready he uses pushing assault to force enemies back, and thanks to his Combat relfexes he can keep them back.
str 19, dex 14, con 14, int 10, wis 14, cha 7 (not set in stone, just what I prefer)
FEATS
1. Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Pushing Assault
2. Iron Will
3. Weapon Focus
4. Bodyguard
5. Weapon Specialization
6. (undecided lunge, step up, Shield Focus.. lots of good choices)
MECHANICS
The tower shield gives an awesome AC, and total cover as a standard action makes you even tougher. You get a huge bonus to CMD, and your will save is very good for a fighter. Your attack bonus isn't high enough to take on the big baddies, but thats what casters are for, right? Your job is to take on all the henchmen, and keep them off the casters. Pushing Assault forces the opponent 5 feet back, and now they can't 5 foot step back into attack range without a move action. You get an AoO, and what do you do with it? Yeah, pushing assault, again. If they still break through Use bodyguard liberally.

The official two-weapon Sword and Board
Your friends often laughed at you during your early days, when the Two-handed barbarian used to make your damage output look laughable, but at level 6 your coming out of your shell. You may not hit as hard as the barbarian, but your AC is much higher, which your cleric appreciates at least.
str 18, dex 17, con 12, int 10, wis 12, cha 7
FEATS
1. Improved shield bash, Two-weapon fighting, Double slice
2. Iron Will
3. Weapon Focus (shieldbash)
4. Power Attack
5. Improved Bull rush
6. Shield Slam
7. Greater bull rush
MECHANICS
Sadly, a TWF sword and board will always suffer until level 6, however he isn't doing terrible. He hits with two weapons at full strength losing power attack damage, but gaining AC. Once he hits level 7 things start to switch rapidly in his favor. His bullrushes provoke AoO now, and he gets them for free. His AC gets a +2 bonus when he makes a full attack, and both sword and shield get a +1 attack and damage bonus. All these abilities will get better with time.
Any buffs like bless, of inspire courage help a TON.

conslusion
heh, I really like my first build more now. Shields, and TWF are too feat heavy. The first build didn't suffer from this. He is a very handy utility fighter right from level one, and he works very well with casters, who are the undisputed best attackers anyway. Ironically both these builds would work AWESOME together. They could literally throw an opponent between them with repeating AoO's and push/bull rushes. Neat..

I tried to use the shield feats, but they are just plain no good. too many prerequisites, and too little to gain. I learned by doing this that shield fighters can be very good utility fighters if you think outside the box. The two weapon fighter is the best traditional sword, and board. He's not bad, but he is still beat by many other fighter builds, sadly. After level 10 he will likely beat these other builds, but that's too long of a wait IMO

yeah good point skylancer, sorry.

syklancer, you seem to be orientated towards a defensive sword and board fighter. Why don't you post a good shield fighter build. I'd like to see it. I'm not going to dissect it and explain why mines better, because we both know I already think that, but not everyone wants that kind of sword and board build, and I can respect that.

After you explained how switching between sword and shield freely in a full attack is useful, I could see how such a fighter could be good. It frees you from taking all the TWF feats for the shield feats. It could be interesting.

If you don't I might later for kicks. I don't feel like it now though..

Something should be done. Feats are far too imbalanced right now. The APG was chok full of absolutely useless feats. Like impersonate a child..really?
cosmopolitan, eagle eyes, gnome trickster, groundling, improved stonecunning.
Just from apg. These feats are all totally useless. most are made redundant by skill focus alone...

power-wise a quarter of the feats I see should be traits.

Of course I am a guilty optimizer, and there is nothing wrong with playing differently (so long as your not the groups gimp).

Check out the shield feats too. they need some work. One prerequisite shield feat only gives you +1 ac against critical threats. It's killing shield builds before they get off the production line.

Pushing assualt is actually a very good trait my ranger is going to take. I'm combining it with combat reflexes, and a lucerne hammer. I get an AoO against anything that gets adjacent to me, I step back, and use a great cleave / pushing assault combo to push them back, and if they want to strike back I will get more AoO.
I think it will have a good feel. I am fending them off with my polearm, and they can't close in.
anyway pushing assault is worth a feat slot IMO

IF your character sits there with a high ac and no attack he is effectively useless. This isn't WoW you can't agro things. You have to hit, or you shall be ignored.
My AC is high enough meaning it's already higher then everyone else. At which point I would rather take something to plus my attack, plus my will saves, give me more utility... anything but more AC.

Ral' Yareth (cool name BTW)

Playing on the pathfinder society I wold totally be allowed to do this.

However skylancer did bring up one interesting fact. the shield is always an off-hand weapon.

Now what does an off-hand weapon mean? I think it could be one of two things...

Either It just means that I only apply half strength to the attack, OR I apply half strength and a -4 penalty.

It could go either way, but I think even the strictest DMs would allow me to use a full attack as I described. The off-hand sepment was likely inserted to kill the stupid two shield guys, who I hate, a lot.

I do disagree with his idea that a shield fighter is a good build though. You get high defense, and no attack, so in combat everything is just going to ignore you. If your going to protect your friends you need to be a threat. You need two-weapon fighter sub build.
Active defense bonus, defensive fighting bonus? I would NEVER trade attack for AC unless I was in some dire situation. A two -weapon fighter gets a incrementing bonus to AC for free. Thats a MILLION times better

I did read the whole thread.

and raving dork I answered every question you already asked TWICE on a my own mancatcher thread.

I don't see why you posted the exact same questions here again, when I thought my answers were pretty clear. I even explained how they are valid in core rules.
What part of my answers are you disagreeing with?

Thanks to some other people clarifying some parts of the mancatcher I was able to figure out how the weapon works without forcing the paizo team to come in, and clarify things. While it may be vague if you read it all carfully 100times (like I did) all the rules are there.

I think you want the paizo team to come in and give their two cents, but IMO that is ridiculous. The only two parts I can't directly link to core rules are..

touch attack to hit...hit normally means damage, but in this case it is an additional check you need to make to grapple. If it's ruled otherwise the weapon would be overpowered. There is no need to wait for an official to say what we already know.

can you pin as an action for maintaining a grapple? this isn't fully clear, but since the mancatcher did not specify rules for maintaining a grapple I would say yes. If I learn later that I cannot it's not a big deal.

I answered every other question already. Don't copy paste the same ANSWERED question into multiple threads!

The only parts I question now.

The original hit should be clarified. I always assume the rule that doesn't make the weapon ridiculous.

You might be able to pin as part of the continuing a grapple rules. The weapon doesn't mention what you can do while continuing a grapple. It's no biggie. I don't see it as a game breaker either way.

Otherwise it's all pretty clear to me at this point.

Hey you gotta take what you can get. You can't get official rulings when there aren't any.

I wish you specified which parts you wanted clarification for, but I'll bite.
1) hit normally means take damage, but if this was true the weapon would be overpowered, and broken. Since the weapon allows you to take an attack action the same round you would deal damage twice? no.
2) This is an official ruling. IF you read CMB in core you will see that weapon bonuses do apply. This is a strange case, but if ruled otherwise then anyone could use the weapon untrained.
3)Feint. Target loses his dex bonus to your next melee attack. The grapple is part of the same melee attack standard action. The touch, and grapple are only seperate checks for the attack, but they are not in any way seperate attacks.
4)This rule is implied. They posted the weapons hitpoints. A rule implied this strongly, to me, is just as good as any official ruling.
5)Core rules state you do, and no exception was in the description.
6)core says yes.
7)Core, you can replace melee attacks with combat maneuvers that work "in place of" a melee attack. The mancatchers attack replaces a melee attack, and works even if it isn't specifically mentioned.
8)There are no rules for a mancatchers standard attack, so by core it is a normal attack.
9)The mancatchers description states that you and the target 'gain the grappled condition' it specifies everything that is supposed to happen. You are not using grappling rules you are using a mancatchers own rules. Nothing about the grapple maneuver works with a mancatcher otherwise.
10)Again we are playing by the mancatchers rules, not the grapple rules.

Look at it this way. Everything the mancatcher mentions effectively overwrites the original ruling. Everything it does not mention stays the same. I will dissect this for you
"success means you and the target are grappled, but you do not move into the same space"
This overwrites the original ruling for movement. The target does not move.
"Once the target is grappled, you can perform a move or damage grapple action against him."
This overwrites grapple actions. It did not say you make this to continue the grapple. It said once the target is grappled. This overwrites the original ruling about grapple actions.
Because it overwrites the original ruling it also omitted pin.

Now the parts not mentioned at all are unchanged.
Continuing a grapple rules, +5 bonus if opponent can't excape (you still can't pin That was overwritten when it stated your grapple actions)
grapple check is needed every round. so on and so forth...

I read your thread, and a lot of the dissagrements are, for lack of better wording, retarded. It is obvious that you can sunder the mancatcher that is why they put down it's hitpoints. If your waiting for a paizo official to stop by and agree to this you are also retarded. As others have said the rules were made before the weapon, and weapons like this have a habbit of bending old rules. When they imply you can do something by posting it in the description you should assume it overrides the original ruling. They also posted that you can break with a DC 26 strength check. This isn't something you do in a grapple either . The weapon mentions all the rules it overrides. This isn't a tye dye shirt. We don't mix the same rules together to make a neat mess of contradictions.

Note the opponent is Grappled, and he follows the rules for 'what you can do while grappled' PLUS what the weapon says he can do.
He can attack anyone near him, he can cast certain spells, he can try to excape, PLUS he can strength check, and sunder. IF you drop the weapon he can make a stand action to excape. None of this is in core, but it's pretty clearly in the weapons description.
He cannot reverse the grapple because he cannot move you into his square. That's in core for him.

So the questions so far:

1) When does the damage take place? After you make the touch attack? Only when you successfully take the damage grapple action? Or must you make a normal attack and not a grapple attack to deal the damage (effectively giving the weapon two types of attack)--and if so, is the damaging attack also a touch attack?

2) Do bonuses from my mancatcher (such as the enhancement bonus from being magic/masterwork, or the bonus from Weapon Focus) apply to grapple checks made with the mancatcher?

3) If I feint successfully before attempting a grapple with the mancatcher, does the target lose their Dexterity modifier against the touch attack? Or both the touch attack AND the grapple check?

4) If someone successfully attacks (and grapples) me from 10 feet away with a mancatcher, can I attempt to sunder the mancatcher even though my opponent is outside my reach?

5) Do I get to add x1.5 my strength modifier to damage for the mancatcher being a two-handed weapon even though it utilizes touch attacks?

6) Can I still use Power Attack with a mancatcher if I choose to forgo the touch attack and make a normal attack roll?

7) Making multiple attacks with a mancatcher means that the attack rolls get progressively lower with multiple attacks. Can a high level fighter really attempt to grapple someone 4 times with this weapon, over double what even a greater grapple fighter can get in one round? If so, do the grapple checks for each progressive attack take the penalties as though they were iterative attacks? CMB checks often face the same penalties as attack rolls after all.

8) A mancatcher cannot be used to capture a creature of the wrong size, but can it be used to damage a creature of the wrong size? If so, is it a touch attack or a normal attack?

9) The mancatcher says "you do not move into the same space," however, it was my understanding that you don't do this in a normal grapple (instead you move your target adjacent to you). Being a reach weapon that was (in the real world) was...

Hey you have your own mancatcher thread!

1)damage takes place after your grapple check, but only if you choose the damage grapple action
2)yes, they have to. otherwise everyone will use the weapon untrained.
3)Yes since its all part of a single melee attack.
4)yes, it's obviously supposed to be that way.
5)its a two-handed weapon, and it has no exceptions in its description, so yes.
6)If you even can make a normal attack, then yes, but why? get a spear
7)yes yes yes yes.
8)why do you want to swing a 1d2 weapon around? its a standard attack. knock your socks off.
9)You answered your own question here. what does the mancatchers description say? I don't think you move the victim after the grapple at all, unless you make a move-action
10) You cant pin. those attacks are exclusive.

Hey you have your own mancatcher thread!

1)damage takes place after your grapple check, but only if you choose the damage grapple action
2)yes, they have to. otherwise everyone will use the weapon untrained.
3)Yes since its all part of a single melee attack.
4)yes, it's obviously supposed to be that way.
5)its a two-handed weapon, and it has no exceptions in its description, so yes.
6)If you even can make a normal attack, then yes, but why? get a spear
7)yes yes yes yes.
8)why do you want to swing a 1d2 weapon around? its a standard attack. knock your socks off.
9)You answered your own question here. what does the mancatchers description say?
10) You cant pin. those attacks are exclusive.

Ederin, good post.

I 100% agree.

Please do me and my thread a favor. Lets never talk about dual-wielding shields. First shield is an off-hand weapon, seconded these people make me want to choke myself. Its too stupid for me.

And your right about the swords. Leather is tough armor for a sword to pierce, chainmail is near impossible, and plate it right out of the question. A skilled warrior attacks weakpoints to compensate.also, I think shields are sexy personally.

MY only regret about shields is no touch AC. I think it makes plenty of sense that it's harder to touch a guy holding a shield. It gives the shield some uniqueness, and really helps a slow fighter take on spellcasters.

Otherwise I am only defending it from people that think a shield should be nerfed, which is completely crazy. I get +1ac, and a 1d4 attack. Thats pretty nerfed already if you ask me. Oh but don't worry we gave you 200 new shield feats. Each does next to nothing, but if you take all 200 you can block a ray.

yes it does need clarification.

success means you and the target are grappled, but you do not move into the same space. Once the target is grappled, you can perform a move or damage grapple action against him.

The way it' s worded I think the second version is correct, but it could go either way. They might just be stating which grapple actions you can make (no pin).

Since the weapon is exotic, limited to one size, and makes you roll a touch attack plus grapple I would just assume its all supposed to be done in one round. If its identical to a grapple it's not useful enough to bother taking.

the way feint works I would assume the target loses his dex for both the touch, and the combat maneuver because its all part of the same attack.

so I make a touch attack, make a grapple check, and move/attack.
The next turn the opponent can try to escape, sunder the mancatcher, make a strength check, attack a nearby target, or (if it has reach) attack me
I get a +5 bonus(but no feint bonus), and I can either drop the weapon (he needs a standard action to escape), or make an attack / move action.

As far as grapple weapons go the mancatcher hits for a lot of damage.

I really don't see what all the fuss is all about.

The original question..
So about your AoO against a reach weapon. I am going to have to say no you shouldn't get one. Hopefully you will agree once I explain. 
Why do you get an AoO? Because the dragon let his guard down to disarm you. Your too far to take advantage of his dropped guard. The attack itself is not the AoO. 
Let's say your friendly rogue was stealthed next to the dragon. She noticed that the dragon left himself vulnerable so that he could disarm you, so she took advantage of this by attacking the body part that was exposed during the attack.
You see that exposed part is beyond your reach. The part of the dragon you are facing has no weaknesses. The same goes for a polearm. Just what part of a big pointy stick being shoved in your face is an opportunity. Now 10 feet away the man behind that stick had to raise both his arms up to trip/disarm etc etc. He is vulnerable, his pointy stick is all business.

The skewed follow-ups...
No you can't sunder a reach weapon. In reality It makes no sence, and it makes no sence in pathfinder

Yes you can sunder a mancatcher. Do you think they posted the weapons hardness to be cute?

A perspective on reality. A two-handed sword was designed to sunder pikes so that they could break the pikeman's formation. However these are braced pikes, and furthermore the swords didn't actually break the pikes as much as they moved the pikes out of the way.

its not a hard test to do at home. Have a friend hold a big stick in your face. Now you hit that stick with an axe (without killing your friend). Note the results.. All of your energy moved the stick, but you didn't hurt the stick in the attack. If your friend planted that stick in the ground, put his foot over the planted segment, and held the stick it would now be braced like a pikemen's pike. Try hitting that stick again (is your friend stupid or trusting?). Note two things.
1. the stick was harder to move, but it still moved
2. you probably chipped the stick that time.
This is why two-handed weapons were needed to sunder pikes, because if a smaller weapon hit it the pike wouldn't give much.
Ok final test. Put the stick on a stump, and have your friend hold the other end (this is extremely stupid by the way, enjoy the hospital bill), and hit it. Wow that stick is crying to it's little woodland mamma now right?

Conclusion.
You cant sunder a wielded weapon you can just parry it aggressively :-P
A mancatcher is braced at two points, and cannot give. It is not like the other polearms because of this, and can be sundered AFTER it is attached to you.

Sundering in combat IMO highly..retarded, and only exists in a fantasy world, where you can destroy a guy's armor without hurting him at all...With a hammer no less!
and where you can attack a guys sword, and break it! That kind of thing only happens if your opponent is stopping your attack with his sword. You don't get to choose to attack his sword. His sword-arm has a much higher dexterity then the body attached to it.

barbarion "I attack his sword"
DM "His sword dodges" "Maybe you should try attacking him next time?"

I think your right now actually, but it's not clear IMO

Heres a big question

Make a touch attack to hit an opponent and a combat maneuver check to grapple him (without the –4 penalty for not having two hands free); success means you and the target are grappled, but you do not move into the same space. Once the target is grappled, you can perform a move or damage grapple action against him.

Is this all part of one attack???

Offensively If I saw a guy with two weapons I would charge him with my shield, knock him to the ground, and stab him to death. He has no chance offensively, or defensibly. He is screwed.

Now onto the mechanics a little.

The post is proclaiming the fact that the best shield build is two-weapon fighter. You can like it or not. IT's true.

The two weapon fighter with a sword and board gets an AC bonus with full attacks, He gets an attack bonus to his weapon, and his shield, and can use both in a standard attack.

If someone wants to be a historically accurate soldier this build may interest them, because beyond this sub-class the shielded fighter is under par compared to any other fighter type. And that is Bull!

This build effectively represents a Sword and board fighter in the sense that he has substantial battlefield control, and good offensive power that does not cut his defensive strength. He prefers to hold his ground, and loses his bonus AC, and extra attacks when he moves around.

You can argue that some tiny details are wrong, but you are ignoring the fact that shields are already a terrible representation of their actual strength.

haha, nice debate.

Try to focus a little less on whether the shield is a better weapon, and focus more on this question. Is the shield better then a weapon?

The answer is a resounding yes.

How many professional soldiers used two weapons? Not many.

How many professional soldiers used a shield? Everyone that didn't have a two-handed weapon had a shield.

What if a guy with two weapons fought a guy with a shield? The shield wins hands down. The other guy doesn't have a prayer.

Now think about pathfinder, and how backwards it is in this assessment.

Why does everyone want a soldier armed with a spear, and a shield? because it was one of the most successful arms one could have for generations on end.

The shield deserves some respect I say!

Now let me nit pick your posts :-D

You talk a lot about knocking people down or using a shield to disarm or using if for inclose maneuvers, all while protected behind the shield. Here I agree with you. Maybe there could be feats to add bonuses to certain maneuvers when using a shield, that would be good and flavorful and would, in my mind, be more accurate on the actual use of shields. But relying on your shield to be a damage dealer still seems silly to me.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. There are what 15 shield feats now? more even??

MY argument about the shield is in two very simple parts that are hard to deny.
1) The shield may not directly attack as well as a weapon, but is superior to a weapon as an offensive tool.
2) Rather then make things complicated the shield should just be considered a weapon. If you want to be creative imagine that you pushed your opponent back with a shield, and stabbed him after you created the opening.

Because you wouldn't have enough force to even move the car, let alone throw it far enough to hit me.

The reason a shields reach is poor is the same reason a shields power is so high. They did the tests. if you get hit with a shield you are not walking home. Put a spike on that, and your talking serious trouble.

tower shields were not use offensively Tower shields are pretty much pavise shields. Legionnaires shield was a big heavy shield.

Wow this weapon is very cool now that it's coming to light. With expeditious retreat I can literally drag a wizard right into our fighters.

Now how does feint fit into all this. If I feint an opponent he loses his dex for my next melee attack. Does it
A) Only help the touch attack
B) Help the touch attack, and the grapple check
C) Help the touch attack, grapple check, and attack grapple check
D) Do nothing

I was figuring you had to have posted that for some reason, but your explanation was nonexistent. Sorry about my negative post I was actually going to edit it out. (just got home from work)

I think your right now. Your version should be right if it isn't, since touch attacks are very easy.

So there is a THIRD sequence in this. I make a touch attack, then I roll a CMB grapple, then I make a regular attack, right?

Hmm. I'm not a very seasoned grappler do I even roll another attack, or do I just declare that I am dealing damage with a grapple attack that round?

Thanks for the responses.

Hogarth, please read the weapon in question before posting...
"Make a touch attack to hit an opponent and a combat maneuver check to grapple him"

skylancer4, when you trip with a whip your weapon bonuses come into play. If you have weapon finesse then you use your dex for your CMB too. This is in the FAQ right...here
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Weapon-Finesse-9-25-09-

You see that it exempts grapple, because grapple is not used with a weapon, but this grapple is, however the wording is a little odd to me. The way it's description specifically says that I make a CMB check to grapple the opponent, and the fact that this check comes after I already hit the opponent.

I mean, I think it should apply weapon bonuses, because if it doesn't I will just use this weapon untrained, since it's easy to make a touch attack. If it adds the weapon bonuses then I will take that -4 on my CMB too, which will mean I will fail quite often.

I'm also a little wary about how I attack after I grapple. I imagine I use the mancatcher to attack, because otherwise I can't attack. Under rules for grapple I can only attack unarmed, or with a light weapon. The mancatcher says I can make a grapple-attack, but it doesn't say if I use the mancatcher for this attack.

About the weapons low attack value..
I am a bard, so my attack bonus isn't very high, and I have a very limited weapon selection. However I do have a high strength, and arcane strike at level 5 thats +8 magic damage.
My attack bonus at level 5 would be +8, and after a successful feint my touch attack will often be against a 10AC. That means I only miss on a 1-2 roll.
My whip does less damage then this since it's one-handed
My long spear does 3 more average damage (1d8)
see where this is getting weird??

My bard was looking for a way to make a touch attack with a weapon, so I could feint, and pretty much just have to beat a 10AC. I finally found the previously overlooked mancatcher, but I'm not sure how some things work for this weapon, and would like them cleared up before I actually use it.

First off I'm assuming I can damage my opponent every round with the mancatcher since he is 10 feet away, and that my opponent is hitting the mancatcher in an attempt to break it, since he can't hit me.

My real question is the CMB for the grapple. This is one of the few times you are actually grappling with a weapon, so would a masterwork weapon increase my CMB in this case? or is it still a naked check?

Also, this weapon is really a touch attack with 1.5 times strength for being two-handed? If so it's a pretty dangerous weapon especially against high AC opponents.

I thought that deadliest warrior was a little ridiculous (a hoplite got 90% of his kills with a shield?? obviously a spears reach isn't a factor)

Besides that Demoyn is right. A shield is a dang fine weapon.

And Lord Twig, you are right. a shield's biggest disadvantage is it's poor reach as a weapon.

One thing deadliest warrior got right (other then how to cut a pig) was the kinetic force of a shield, it's an incredible amount of power.

A shield in pathfinder has a lower attack value then a weapon, and you can get free bashes with it. If you do not think spartans killed with shields I'll tell ya your crazy. Those shields were deadly. Getting 'pushed' with a shield is a terribly painful experience, where one second you were charging at your enemy, the next you are eating dirt with a concussion. As a Greek, who reads everything there is to know about Spartans I gotta tell you. Spartans used EVERYTHING as a weapon.

You have some great points about the shield, but it should stay the same offensively since you cannot portray the shields offensive abilities in this game. Shoving a shield in the other guys face knocks him off balance, gives you an opening for your next attack, knocks charging opponents on the ground, disorientates the opponent, and the large spike is not only deadly, but quite armor piercing (beats a sword, or a spear). All of this plus the shield leaves no openings.

Shields were a utility that no warrior could be without. until polearms shields were absolutely essential. Here's the run down. Shield > anyone without a shield, except 2-handers. In pathfinder shields SUCK, so lets not nerf them!!!

If you have a 2 handed weapon you have reach, your attack is powerful enough to knock your opponent off balance, create an opening, and knock the opponent down. I cannot tell you who would win between two-handers and shield-users, but I can tell you a lot of people are going to die.

ok here's a similar thread that the developers have chimed in on.

It looks like we got into a big freaking mess with the rules as they are written.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/whatHappensWhenIMakeAnOffHandAttack&page=1#17

Please read it carefully, because it still does not make things perfectly clear.

According to this I feel that the following would be true...

A shield is considered an off-hand weapon- This means you only get half strength bonus when you attack no matter what. It does NOT mean you are two-weapon fighting every time you use your shield.

You can attack with a shield as a standard attack without penalty, except half strength.

Under the strictest rules There is nothing stopping someone from attacking with a sword, declaring full attack, and attacking with their shield with the rest of their attacks.

I still cannot find any reason why I cant switch between a sword and a shield freely in a full-round attack. There is nothing saying that I can't. In the forums here there is a lot of support for this too. People are also ok with you mixing ranged, and melee attacks in a full-attack action. Heres a thread about different attacks as a full-round action
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/dnd/archives/attackPa tterns&page=1&source=search#0

Please read the threads and tell me what you think.

EDIT: Ok I think I got it. an off-hand attack is delivered at a -4 penalty, so In my combat simulation he would be taking a -4 penalty to his shield attacks, while a shielded fighter wouldn't.

lol none of this is very clear, and I hope they bring is up in a FAQ soon, or ettera the Two-weapon fighting, because it is undoubtably the cause of all this.
A funny workaround. Online society agrees that switching hands is a free action. You can't do this with shields, but you can do it with anything else. Switch hands, and your not two-weapon fighting anymore.

I'd say were at a pretty solid rules conflict here.

Your right shield bash does say 'counts as an off-hand attack' which does put a wrench in things, however two-weapon fighting makes it pretty obvious that your only two weapon fighting if you get an extra attack.

so what do we got here? an off-hand weapon, but no two-weapon fighting?

Something is missing here. I'll try to find something useful in the rulebooks here.

PErsonally I think the whole off-hand attack is ridiculous. As james said. What if I attack with a shield as a standard action? is that two-weapon fighting now too?

no something is amiss...

I play society so anything past level 12 doesn't matter to me :-D

^Thats important because it explains why I don't care about shield buffet turning swift at level 13. It is not worth a move action, and my AC is already very high.

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. (the rules are very unclear)

-Two weapon fighting"if you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

-full attack "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first."

I feel that the full attack section makes it pretty clear that I can attack with either weapon, or one weapon. It made no mention of TWF anywhere, but it was clear about the fact that I can use either weapon.

The two-weapon fighting section very specifically notes that I suffer a penalty IF I get an extra attack. I am not getting an extra attack thus I am not two-weapon fighting.

This ability is already legal.

Also as written if you did have TWF you could make all attacks with the shield or all attacks with the main hand weapon.

It says with a full attack action I can alternate between a weapon and a shield without TWF penalties. It doesn't say anything about this at all.

You can switch target between full attacks too- http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/fullAttackMultipleTargets&page=1&source=search#0
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/fullAttackMultipleAttacksQuestions&page=1&source= search#0

Heres an example of a perfectly legal full round attack.done by a 16th level fighter without twf +16/+11/+6/+1
I am armed with a trident, and a shield. I Hit a goblin with my trident, and decide to go full attack. I hit him with my trident again, he dies. I 5 foot step to another goblin, and bash him into some lava(free bull rush with shield). I then throw my trident at yet another goblin, and I wield an alternate weapon (quick draw) and end my turn.
With TWF I would get get more attacks. Those attacks must be done with the off-hand weapon, which I must now specify. If you think that's crazy then I should throw in cleave too.

Much agreement. and the shield master aint much better. In fact it's worse.
Active defense- +ac when fighting defensively. yeah that's great if you want to effectively do nothing all round.
shield fighter- + to attack, and damage with shield bash. Two-weapon fighter gets the same bonus with both his weapons. Also note It gives you the ability to switch between the shield, and a weapon in a full attack. too bad anyone can already do this. its not an ability at all!
shield buffet- give up your full round attack to give the enemy -2 to attack..why don't I just hit him with a full attack instead?
so shield fighter has absolutely no advantage over a base fighter.

I play society so anything past level 12 doesn't matter to me :-D

I believe the hoplites used a heavy shield. Even the roman legion arguably used a heavy shield (its a big heavy shield, or a small tower shield). The only real tower shield is a pavise shield, which wasn't really used offensively.
Tower shields were most commonly used by crossbowmen to protect them while reloading, which, ironically, is one thing you cannot do with a tower shield.

Paizo tried to give the shields some love with feats, but well..I can only take so many feats! My sword/board has 3 feats he needs at level 6.
I decided to just ignore weapon focus/specialization to help alleviate this.
Shields need +ac bonuses vs ranged weapons, cover bonuses, and they should add to your ranged touch defense without, you know, taking 3 useless feats just to get that ability.

As a pathfinder society player I find that the rules are not specific enough. I think a lot of people complaining about too many rules are talking more about house games. The solution is simple: ignore the tiny rules, and use house rules like you did before.
In the society I play with different DM's all the time. I can't make a character that does anything questionable, because one day I could play a game like usual, and the DM will be like "uhh you can't do that." Suddenly my character has been trashed because he was built around something that won't work in half the games I play.

The pathfinder rules are very vague, and they often contradict each other. They need to be rewritten more specifically so we don't need to spend so much time figuring out if you can cast spells while grappled.

Oh the grappled thing brings me on to a whole other tangent. They mention grappling means you grabbed the guys arm, yet you cannot cast the vast majority of spells at all. Seems kind of strange to me...

other things: wizards should get 1d4 hp, A bards perform skill should help his performances, and more shield love!

I want to end this by saying that pathfinder is totally awesome, and I love it to death. thank you paizo!

Oh I always wanted to make a classic spear, and shield fighter, which wasn't very attractive in the base player guide, but when I got the APG, and read about the new fighter sub-classes I got all excited again, but I noticed something strange I'd like to share.
Check out the phalanx
Stand firm- small CMB bonus. Not a big deal but it beats bravery IMO
Phalanx fighting- Use a two-handed weapon with one hand (the phalanx's best feature)
now things start to taper off a bit...
Ready pike- brace as an immediate action. Pretty cool, but I would prefer my weapons training 1.
Deft Shield- A bit better then armor training, because it helps compensate for losing weapons training.
Shield ally- This would be good, but the whole point of the shield is to give you shield bash. Your already wielding a large spear in one hand, so why on earth are you going to have a heavy shield in the other. If you have a light shield this ability is a complete waste.

Overall I did not feel the phalanx soldier had much to offer over a base fighter with a shield, and a trident. in fact I thought the base fighter was better. I ditched the plan until...

Two-weapon fighter
defensive flurry- +1 dodge bonus when you use a full attack that improves every 4 levels. this is way way better then armor training 1 & 2
twin blades- +1 to attack, and damage when using two-weapons. It improves every 4 levels, and you only lose weapon training 1- this is huge.
Doublestrike- Normally if I use a move action I am severely hampered. Not any more. This lets me attack with both weapons as a standard action. keep in mind that I get a free bull rush with one of these attacks too. This is very,very good.
Improved balance- -1 to twf penalties. This is so-so.

conclusion.
The phalanx soldier is beat at it's own game by the two-weapon fighter.
The phalanx soldier has neat flavor things, but ultimately your still an inferior fighter with a shield. The phalanx soldier NEEDS shield ally, since he is not a threat, and will not be a prime target.

The two-weapon fighter not only gets a bonus to attack and damage to both his shield, and his trident(by far beating the phalanx fighting ability), but he also get a higher AC plus a slew of additional features that really help a sword and board fighter. The two-weapon fighter doesn't need shield ally, since he will be the center of attention in combat already.

For even more flavor I will be using a quickdraw shield. When I absolutely need to hit a guy with a full attack I can drop my trident, and throw weapons with both hands, while still gaining my twin blades bonuses.
Funny that this beats both the builds that were specifically made for sword and board fighters.

I want to agree with this. The roman shield was big, but still a heavy shield.
There is no doubt a tower shield would give the user an attack penalty, however, like all shields, the tower shield is still under par with reality.
I personally think a tower shield should always count as partial cover unless you attack that round. It should also provide you with some benefit against ray spells, and fireballs. Really all shields should.
Add Shield bonus to reflex save, or something.

I did look up exactly the same thing you were thinking about by the way.

The orc's bite would be a secondary weapon. It's part of a rule involving weapons, and natural weapons together.

Want a cheap, easy way to deal unarmed damage? Kick.

You'll receive an AoO but no -4 penalty. You think "why thats a terrible trade-off."

Well not always. IT only provokes from the guy you attack, not everyone. They can only get an AoO if they have one to spare too. If the critter already used his AoO and doesn't have combat reflexes, then kick the bastard.

natural attacks have a -4 penalty

Alright, my bard is stuck at a crossroad here, and I'm hoping for some constructive advice.

My bard has 14 charisma, and 17 strength. He fights primarily with a whip, but wields a long spear against creatures immune to trip attacks.

He is level 3 now, and he was going to take weapon focus (whip) and dazzling display at level 5. The thing is with only 14 charisma I don't think he is going to have a high enough intimidate to make dazzling display worthwhile. At level 5 he will have +11 intimidate total. Not bad, but dazzling display is a full round action, and It's unlikely I will daze opponents for more then one round reliably.

As an alternative I was thinking about taking arcane strike at level 3, power attack at level 5, and cornugon smash at level 7. I would be a hard-hitter, but with a secondary BaB would I be able to hit often enough?

Improved feint is a factor, since I can often negate dex bonuses

2d4/X2, 10 foot reach, trip attacks, drop the chain to avoid being tripped, +2 to disarm and resist being disarmed, Weapon Finesse

There were other feats and prestige classes that allowed further shenanigans

People were saying you threatened adjacent enemies with it too I think.

Sadly I'm fairly sure that this weapon was nerfed, and they removed reach, which makes it entirely useless. It's sad the the fix for a slightly overpowered weapon was making it useless, but whacha gonna do.

The ironic part is that many new weapons have reach, and trip, and a higher crit / damage then the spiked chain.

I don't really get spiked chain. Did they change it at some point?
The spiked chain description I have doesn't give the chain reach which means the only tripping advantage is that you drop your weapon on a big fail rather then tripping yourself.
My trip-happy bard uses a scorpion whip. It has a 15-foot reach, so no attacks of opportunity, but you miss out on any AoO yourself. Good two-handed trip weapons with reach would include the fauchard, or Meteor hammer. You can also take a glaive-guisarme, or guisarme without the exotic feat.

I remember people complaining about the spiked chain being ridiculous, so I wonder. Did they change it, or am I just missing something important about this weapon.

Take additional feats. It's not a huge sacrifice. You can always find some useful traits besides this one. Of course I'm don't know what ideas you have planned, but I think that's what I would do.

The thug idea is pretty interesting, and I'll look into it, but I fear inquisitors, like the bards, really lose a lot when they dip into other classes.
Then again I would gain a sneak attack too.

Well I already wrote out a big biography, and thug just won't fit.

Good idea though!

I wept for joy when I found it. What more could I ask for? It was exactly what I needed.

Sorry the name isn't quite right.

Blade of Mercy (Sarenrae)
Source: Legacy of Fire Player's Guide 9

I found it here http://nethys.karuikage.net/traits.htm

They have it marked as legal for society play. I haven't double checked yet, and they aren't always right.

** I just checked It is legal here's the snippet from the society rules pdf on legacy of fire

Traits: all traits on pages 7–9 are allowed except Duskwalker
Agent (Notes: Uwaga Highlander applies only to the Stealth skill and Eyes
and Ears of the City applies only to the Perception skill; no campaign
traits are allowed.)

Alright I think I found a good way to use enforcer for non-lethal, and use nets all with good background flavor.

You need to pick Sarenrae as your deity, and take the merciful blade trait. Now your falchion/scimitar not only loses its -4 attack penalty, but it also gains one damage.

I really had to stretch to find a way to use nets well. I finally found the Andoran trait Carpenden Lobber, which gives me ++2 to attack with nonlethal thrown objects. Since nets are a ranged touch I can take -2 on attack without losing much effectiveness.

So now I take enforcer at level one and I can deal nonlethal with every attack. That's a free demoralize attempt, which lasts a number of rounds equal to my damage.

If I get first in initiative I can throw my net at flatfooted opponents and likely only need a 10 to entangle my target. The nets also work great against spellcasters.

The character flavor is great too. I'm working on a story for my half-orc about his brutal life in the cult of Razmirian, his daring excape from the cult, and his rise to redemption. Now he is a pacifistic good-natured half-orc, who still insights terror into the enemies of his faith just as he learned from the cult. Instead of killing he hopes to wow his opponents into changing their ways. He marks everyone he spares with the symbol of his deity, so they know which god to thank.
Should be interesting.

I am a huge bard fan, and decided to check out inquisitors as a secondary character, since they are both rather similar.

Half-Orcs can take beastmaster to gain access to the whip and the net. The whip will allow you to deal non-lethal damage, while the net will allow you to entangle spellcasters, and other fun things.

An interesting way to start combat would be to ready an attack with a whip against anything that comes in range, deal non-lethal damage from 15 feet away, get your free demoralize, and use your move action to whip out your greataxe. It's really nice since your init is going to be off the charts, so you'll likely go first.

whips, and especially nets fit in real well with inquisitor flavor. At least I think they do.

A big problem I noticed with inquisitor feats stems from the lack of a +1 BAB at level 1. That means all the good feats are out of reach until later, so you might as well get a neat flavor feat, since you can't get power attack, or weapon focus yet anyway.

**Well scratch everything I said. For the millionth time treating the weapon as martial doesn't do any good when you don't have proficiency in martial weapons!!!

haha, that is funny.

Yeah don't feel bad about the charisma thing.
I think at first level high strength is much better, because you can only cast two spells anyway, but as you go up in levels I think that +1 spell DC will be worth -1 to attack.
By level 3 your going to debuff creatures like crazy. I don't think you'll care by then.

I wanted to take prehensile whip pretty bad. It was a long hard debate. Ultimately I decided I wouldn't be able to think of enough uses for it. If I was you I would have multiple whips holstered, so you can just leave them after you swing around like a lunatic.

As for the net thing. Let your DM destroy it. Just buy a bunch of them. Later at 6th level you can use mending on a net if you bought one worth saving. It's still very effective. The whole party can hit the creature easier that round, and the creature still wastes its turn destroying the net. Awesome. I'm jealous.

Treantmonk would be proud :-D

Have a gnome make a netgun for you!!

mmmm yes!

edit: I was just thinking about how improved feint would help you since the net already reduces dex, while it's a little redundant you can still feint the actual net throw. Now its a touch attack, AND your opponent loses his dexterity. ouch.

aww dang your right.

Ancestral Arms could make it happen, but the loss of skill focus is a big deal too. oh well

Agile Manuvers I feel is far from optimal because you have to spend a feat to get it, and it in no way helps your to-hit, or damage. It's better to get weapon finesse so you can at least hit things, and even then you wont do much damage.
High strength saves you a costly feat slot so you can get Dazzling display sooner, and if your facing one of the many creatures that has multiple legs, and is immune to mind-controlling spells you can still hurt the danm thing. If you have agile manuvers in this situation your totally screwed!
Also scorpion whip deals damage unlike a regular whip.

so agile manuvers
Pros
Higher AC
Cons
Costs a feat
Lower to-hit, and damage
I'm not a tank- class. I'll take to-hit and damage any day. Not worth a feat.

I'm still defending Improved feint as the best build (for controller bard)currently.
Pros
Fient as a move action to make opponent flat footed. also hurts CMD
High strength means good CMB attack and damage.
If you can't trip you can always just hit them.
Cons
Only 14 Cha means spells have low saves (i try to stick with spells without saves whenever I can)
Lower ac

At Last there is a cool fix for the net problem that goes perfect with treantmonk's control bard.
Check out the half-orc's alternet racial ability

Half orcs are already a strong race suggestion for their intimidate bonus. Now they also get nets for FREE.

So now a half-orc controller bard can take Combat expertise first level, Weapon focus whip at level three, and dazzling display at level five. Improved trip can wait since your net will give you a big advantage to trip anyway.

I'm personally happy just using improved feint as a move action. It's been working great, but the half-orc will get a higher intimidate roll, and he can switch to better two-handed weapon when the need arises, although the scorpion whip does fix a lot of problems here, and keeps my guy out of harms way. I'll be screwed the first time I face something with step up.

Tell me how it goes LLefser. Too bad you cant get a really big net, and entangle multiple enemies. Worst happens you still got some super cool spells. I really love my bard, and I am having a hard time finding a good secondary class just because I love my bard so much.
Another good thing is you'll probibly have 16 charisma, so your spells will stick better then mine.

Haha I appreciate your courageous attempt to save the net, but its really risky to put that trait on one net, which you could lose really easy, but it would work. Thing is you could just buy a few tanglefoot bags too unless I'm mistaken.

I just tried out my bard build, and improved feint really really works.

str 17, dex 14, int 14, wis 7, cha 14,
I bluffed like 5 times in my first mission, and never failed, which made all of my opponents flat-footed. This gave me a bonus to tripping, disarming, and regular attacks.
15 foot reach with a whip is a really big deal.

As for spells Grease, and dancing lights are immediatly useful, but I am most happy with silent image, and ghost sound. The idea was to play a control bard, and silent image really made me just that. I used it to wall off half of our opponents. while the spellcaster knew it was an illusion he still couldn't see us without moving out of the spell, and one of his henchman couldnt pass the save, and ended up helplessly stuck.

It was a good time :-D

I love your class guides treantmonk, and you can see a piece of your guide in every character I make.
That being said the controller bard seems to be a lost cause in it's current state. I cannot see a way to make nets worthwhile.
First and most importantly you cannot take exotic weapons, or weapon focus at first level, which is the killer.
I tried skipping net proficiency, going high dex, and using weapon finesse, but the nets still aren't worth the trouble. They are surely not worth the feat either.
I tested high dex vrs high strength, and I feel that high strength is the best way to go, because it saves you a feat, and gives you + damage for a backup plan.

I refused to give up on the controller bard, because he is so darn cool, and came up with a different idea for him. Rather then wasting a feat on nets get improved feint instead, and grab a long spear for backup.
As a human you can grab combat expertise, and improved trip at first level, then improved feint at 3rd level. Now you can effectively trip opponents from a distance. If you miss and they close in on you 5 foot step away, then feint as a movement action, and try your trip again without their dex bonus this time. If they are immune, or resistant to tripping swap the whip for the long spear, and use the same tactics.
At 5th level take either skill focus, arcane strike, or weapon focus (for a late dazzling display). You wont hit greater trip/feint until lvl 9 anyway.

or if you want to use dazzling display take combat expertise, and Improved feint first level, then weapon focus 3rd level, and dazzling display 5th level. The first couple levels you wont be as good, but this route is better later.

In order to make this work I had to cut into charisma a little for a higher base strength.

alright thats my two cents critique away fellas.