This is a joke, right?Well since everyone seems to be on a similar page regarding this, let me threadjack slightly.
What about board and board fighters? Can I play a two-shield using Rygar yet?
I've tried building this character several times, and it's always a huge pain.
Basically I'd like to get two weapon fighting going with a pair of shields, but I'd prefer to be able to throw them and still retain a shield bonus at all times. Barring a returning special ability, I might just need to tie a string to them...
Unless someone has a feat in mind to achieve stuff along these lines? Maybe just quick draw and a sack full of spiked bucklers?
What about a two-shield defence feat tree, similar to two-weapon fighting but allowing you to use two shield bonuses at once?
Weeeeeeell, sort of. I tend to play "joke" characters. My PC in our Dragonlance game was an enormous, gay, TN minotaur rogue with snow-white fur who deserted from the navy, got disowned by his father, worshipped both kiri-jolith and sargas, got into arguments about the nature of morality and existence of evil with the other characters and had crippling phobias of swarms and undead.
He was really fun to roleplay though.
He was really fun to roleplay though.
Cleric: "Hey, can you check this hallway for traps, it looks suspicious."
Cingas Es'Breskar, minotaur of awesome: "I'm going to be honest with you. I'm really not very good at this sort of thing."
*time passes*
Cleric: "Oh god, my leg was broken in the fall! I can see bone!"
Oh and what kind of weapon is a shield? One-handed? Are bucklers light? Could I get a mithral small shield to count as light for two-weapon purposes?
According to the 3.5 weapon table, small shields are considered light weapons and heavy shields are considered one-handed. I believe there was discussion for mithral weapons to be considered light for purposes of Weapon Finesse (and possibly Two-Weapon Fighting) in the final version of PF. However, 3.5 still lets you fight with a heavy spiked shield (primary) and small spiked shield (off-hand) at the normal penalties; it just doesn't allow you to stack the shield bonuses to AC.
Wasn't there a shield specialization feat that let you keep the shield bonus when fighting with it? Or am I thinking of a buckler feat?
Actually in a way we already have a "defense roll", everyone just "takes ten" on it -- That base 10 AC.Also in Unearthed Arcana it suggests dropping the 10 and just going with a d20 roll!
See, what I would like to for a defensive, Sword N Board Fighter, is more than just AC.
I want to see a Fighter that can use his shield to shield bash and stun a guy. I wanna see a Fighter that can use his shield to make people move where he wants them to go. I wanna see a Fighter use his shield to protect the squishy wizard.
The Fighter with a board, should be a battlefield commander. Right now there is no reason at all for the enemy to stop and engage with a Fighter. It makes more sense to run past the Fighter (I take an AoO for 1d8+6? sure no problem), kill the Cleric, then kill the Wizard, then kill the Rogue with his pesky sneak attack and save the Fighter for the last, drawn out kill. He has LOTS of hit points, but is of little threat. Just keep moving and he can't ever use his full attack. You reduce him to a low level character with cool feats that can't be used.
This post sparked an idea for shield fighters. I don't know if there is an equivalent out there, but it might be in keeping with having a defensive role to have a feat that lets someone using a shield to count as occupying an adjacent square (or two adjacent squares at a higher level) in addition to their own square(s). Similar in principle to the Adaptable Flanker feat from the PHB II. It would allow the shield user to act like a "goalie" against enemies. Don't know how problematic it would be ruleswise. And maybe it doesn't need to be restricted to shield users either, but somehow, they should stand to benefit most from a feat like this.
*Edit* Might make for a very effective combo with the Beta feat: "Shall Not Pass" if that makes it through. And it seems tricky to word properly.
Wasn't there a shield specialization feat that let you keep the shield bonus when fighting with it? Or am I thinking of a buckler feat?Dunno about that but I thought there was a buckler feat that let you use a weapon in the buckler hand to fight with and still get the ac bonus from the buckler.
Yep, Improved Buckler Defense from CW. Can't remember if there is a Beta equivalent though. That doesn't seem to help with a 2 shield wielder. You can't bash with a buckler.
But there's Improved Shield Bash. Does that work?
Quite possibly, but would it work with throwing the shield? Rules-wise I mean.
It says you can keep the AC bonus while attacking, so as long as the shield returns to your hand instantly I think you're okay... *starts scribbling notes*
Any thoughts on my "Two Shield Fighting" feat idea? Maybe call the offhand shield a circumstance bonus to AC?
Quite possibly, but would it work with throwing the shield? Rules-wise I mean.
It says you can keep the AC bonus while attacking, so as long as the shield returns to your hand instantly I think you're okay... *starts scribbling notes*
Any thoughts on my "Two Shield Fighting" feat idea? Maybe call the offhand shield a circumstance bonus to AC?
For the sake of your sanity :), perhaps you could wield a small/large shield in one hand and a buckler in the other? Then you could hold a melee weapon with a range increment in your buckler hand for ranged attacks, daggers for instance).
I think either way you may need to make a house rule. I don't think there is any thing out there to allow the AC bonus of both shields to stack (could be wrong though as I have few splat books).
Quite possibly, but would it work with throwing the shield? Rules-wise I mean.
It says you can keep the AC bonus while attacking, so as long as the shield returns to your hand instantly I think you're okay... *starts scribbling notes*
Any thoughts on my "Two Shield Fighting" feat idea? Maybe call the offhand shield a circumstance bonus to AC?
For the sake of your sanity :), perhaps you could wield a small/large shield in one hand and a buckler in the other? Then you could hold a melee weapon with a range increment in your buckler hand for ranged attacks, daggers for instance).
I think either way you may need to make a house rule. I don't think there is any thing out there to allow the AC bonus of both shields to stack (could be wrong though as I have few splat books).
I'm pretty sure I'll hold up, but I really loved the Rygar game as a kid (NES, not the PS2 one; although it was good) and I've always wanted a two-shield version of him. It's not a joke. =B
No no no, I can't compromise the two shields, both for attack and defence. It's that or nothing! Besides, daggers suck without sneak attack.
I don't need a house rule per se, I just need to get a DM who's okay with helping make a feat tree to facilitate this. Like I said, make the one shield a circumstance bonus, not a shield bonus...
I don't need a house rule per se, I just need to get a DM who's okay with helping make a feat tree to facilitate this. Like I said, make the one shield a circumstance bonus, not a shield bonus...
Heh, I'm pretty sure that still counts as houserules.
From your comment I'm not sure you have a DM picked out, so maybe you don't have a campaign picked out for this chracter yet?
I can see this character approach being interesting in a comic book or in a video game, or in a RPG that emulates those genres. If I started a game like that and a player showed up with your two-shield idea, I wouldn't blink an eye.
I have a hard time seeing it in the more traditional D&D style of game. If I started a game like this and a player showed up with your concept, I would send him right back to the drawing board with some advice on keeping his character concept more mainstream.
I would advise to make sure you know what kind of game you'll be playing in, and more power to you if you find the right DM and campaign.
Heh, I'm pretty sure that still counts as houserules.From your comment I'm not sure you have a DM picked out, so maybe you don't have a campaign picked out for this chracter yet?
I can see this character approach being interesting in a comic book or in a video game, or in a RPG that emulates those genres. If I started a game like that and a player showed up with your two-shield idea, I wouldn't blink an eye.
I have a hard time seeing it in the more traditional D&D style of game. If I started a game like this and a player showed up with your concept, I would send him right back to the drawing board with some advice on keeping his character concept more mainstream.
I would advise to make sure you know what kind of game you'll be playing in, and more power to you if you find the right DM and campaign.
I would say more "home brew" than house rule. I don't want to alter the game mechanics, just add a feat or two.
I know who would probably suffer, I mean, ENJOY my character concept. But I'd be willing to throw it out at anyone.
You're kidding right? You're telling me you think this is a more outlandish idea than, say, a half-ogre with a spiked chain? Or a guy who regularly charges armed warriors with bare hands? Or someone who makes explosions of fire with a pouch full of animal parts and funny hand symbols?
I know you don't mean any offense, and I generally like the advice you give, so please take the following as a general response; not me being prickly with you.
If a DM asked me not to play something outlandish, I'd be okay with it. If a DM claimed that fighting with two shields was outlandish, I'd be... skeptical at best. If a DM told me to go back to the drawing board with some comments about keeping things "mainstream", I'd thank everyone for their time, pack, and leave. I like to think I wouldn't tell the DM to go **** themselves, but it's hit or miss.
I'm of the opinion that if I alter my character concept, I'm doing someone a favor; and they had best realize it. I view the DM as a player who gets to adjudicate rules disputes and play more characters, not as "the boss".
For the record, I've lost DMs over things like this; and I don't miss them. I've never lost a player, even when I put limits on character creation. I think it has everything to do with mutual respect, and the typical "do what I say because I say it" approach that I see too often flies in the face of that mutual respect.
Sorry to write a novel, this is a pet peeve.
|
Hmm...some very interesting things here.
As far as the "Effective" Sword & Shield fighter, a Knight/Cleric I used in an Eberron game was pretty darn effective.
With Enlarge Person, some defensive spells, heavy armor, Shield Specialization (Complete Warrior), and Shield Ward, his AC was quite respectable, and with Bulwark of Defense and Large size, battlefield control was very possible.
Things I would like to see include:
Shield Bonus to touch attacks (at least ranged ones...bouncing rays off this hunk of metal seems appropriate to me)
Shield Slams knocking people around, staggering or stunning them, or tripping people. For higher level stuff, probably, but a good portion of shield use was enemy placement and movement, especially when in tight formation.
Ally defense. No reason you couldn't protect part of your buddy with your shield, this was basic military technology for quite a long time, finally ending only with the advent of really effective long ranged weaponry (like guns).
Simply higher AC. Heavy shield is worth 1/2 of a chain shirt? Really? If I had to guess, I would assume a heavy shield to be like a Hoplite, covering you from knee to shoulder, and being a solid mass in the way of the enemy's pointy bits. No way this should protect you less than the lightweight chain shirt covering your torso, shoulders, and tops of your hips.
Possibly +1 Buckler, +2 Light, +4 Heavy, and +5 Tower Shield? Could even go so far as +6 Tower, and lose the "total cover" BS, seeing as how it already costs you a -2 to hit, and has very high ACP and low Max Dex.
Other than that, lose the Animated property altogether, I hate it and see it as a horrible cop out / way to cheat the system.
-t
Heh, I'm pretty sure that still counts as houserules.From your comment I'm not sure you have a DM picked out, so maybe you don't have a campaign picked out for this chracter yet?
I can see this character approach being interesting in a comic book or in a video game, or in a RPG that emulates those genres. If I started a game like that and a player showed up with your two-shield idea, I wouldn't blink an eye.
I have a hard time seeing it in the more traditional D&D style of game. If I started a game like this and a player showed up with your concept, I would send him right back to the drawing board with some advice on keeping his character concept more mainstream.
I would advise to make sure you know what kind of game you'll be playing in, and more power to you if you find the right DM and campaign.
I would say more "home brew" than house rule. I don't want to alter the game mechanics, just add a feat or two.
I know who would probably suffer, I mean, ENJOY my character concept. But I'd be willing to throw it out at anyone.
You're kidding right? You're telling me you think this is a more outlandish idea than, say, a half-ogre with a spiked chain? Or a guy who regularly charges armed warriors with bare hands? Or someone who makes explosions of fire with a pouch full of animal parts and funny hand symbols?
I know you don't mean any offense, and I generally like the advice you give, so please take the following as a general response; not me being prickly with you.
If a DM asked me not to play something outlandish, I'd be okay with it. If a DM claimed that fighting with two shields was outlandish, I'd be... skeptical at best. If a DM told me to go back to the drawing board with some comments about keeping things "mainstream", I'd thank everyone for their time, pack, and leave. I like to think I wouldn't tell the DM to go **** themselves, but it's hit or miss.
I'm of the opinion that if I alter my character concept, I'm doing someone a favor; and they had best realize it. I view the DM as a player who gets to adjudicate rules disputes and play more characters, not as "the boss".
For the record, I've lost DMs over things like this; and I don't miss them. I've never lost a player, even when I put limits on character creation. I think it has everything to do with mutual respect, and the typical "do what I say because I say it" approach that I see too often flies in the face of that mutual respect.
Sorry to write a novel, this is a pet peeve.
Yeah, I get you.
See, this is what happens when I don't write a novel. I try to be brief, then don't express myself adequately.
I didn't mean for my example DM to sound bossy. I was trying to say briefly what you said more expansively. I don't think a DM is boss.
That's the tarrasque's job.
Yeah, I get you.
See, this is what happens when I don't write a novel. I try to be brief, then don't express myself adequately.
I didn't mean for my example DM to sound bossy. I was trying to say briefly what you said more expansively. I don't think a DM is boss.
That's the tarrasque's job.
Hehehe
I had a feeling you were just saying something along the lines of, "many people would think this is silly". And yeah, most people laugh.
Sorry to go on about it.
...
Please don't eat me.
Just trying to visualize how a person would fight with two shields. Really, if he's bashing with them, they should have a reach of 0 ft. -- he'd have to move into the opponent's square -- even though the game rules don't specifically say so, that's the only way I can see it working; it's not like you're swinging a 3-foot-long sword blade around. As DM, I certainly wouldn't ban it, but I'd ask for this compromise as a "nod" towards verisimilitude (my problem is that I like to visualize the characters as people, rather than video game icons).
For the same reason, I houserule that a caster using somatic and material components can't also use Acrobatics to tumble a full move during the same round. According to the rules, he can do so, but it hurts my head to try to visualize that kind of thing actually working.
Actually Kirth you really could. Lead with the edge and slice. It's not going to cut, but it is going to focus all that force into a much narrower band.
Besides if we were really worried about "realism" the dagger should also have a reach of 0 feet.
|
Actually Kirth you really could. Lead with the edge and slice. It's not going to cut, but it is going to focus all that force into a much narrower band.
Besides if we were really worried about "realism" the dagger should also have a reach of 0 feet.
Not to mention a monk having to get in much closer, unless they all happen to be Muhammud Ali.
This is a joke, right?Well since everyone seems to be on a similar page regarding this, let me threadjack slightly.
What about board and board fighters? Can I play a two-shield using Rygar yet?
I've tried building this character several times, and it's always a huge pain.
Basically I'd like to get two weapon fighting going with a pair of shields, but I'd prefer to be able to throw them and still retain a shield bonus at all times. Barring a returning special ability, I might just need to tie a string to them...
Unless someone has a feat in mind to achieve stuff along these lines? Maybe just quick draw and a sack full of spiked bucklers?
What about a two-shield defence feat tree, similar to two-weapon fighting but allowing you to use two shield bonuses at once?
That's what I'm thinking. I mean, what are you trying to make, Captain America? Paint the shield red, white, and blue and make it adamantine and have the returning ability and you're all set.
Just trying to visualize how a person would fight with two shields. Really, if he's bashing with them, they should have a reach of 0 ft. -- he'd have to move into the opponent's square -- even though the game rules don't specifically say so, that's the only way I can see it working; it's not like you're swinging a 3-foot-long sword blade around. As DM, I certainly wouldn't ban it, but I'd ask for this compromise as a "nod" towards verisimilitude (my problem is that I like to visualize the characters as people, rather than video game icons).
For the same reason, I houserule that a caster using somatic and material components can't also use Acrobatics to tumble a full move during the same round. According to the rules, he can do so, but it hurts my head to try to visualize that kind of thing actually working.
Well, other people have already responded but I might as well chime in. Fighting with a shield should actually be a good deal easier than fighting with your hands or a short knife. Seems to me it would actually be pretty difficult to fight with a shield when you're standing so close that you share a space. Oh, and I was indeed thinking of swiping with the edge of the shield as opposed to bashing. Maybe even sharpening the edges to blades. (Something that was occasionally done IRL)
I actually think that it would be rather advantageous to fight with two shields as opposed to a pair of knives or short swords or whatever. Much easier to parry. I guess I'm a little bemused by the disbelief regarding this idea. Why would it be so odd to do this?
That's what I'm thinking. I mean, what are you trying to make, Captain America? Paint the shield red, white, and blue and make it adamantine and have the returning ability and you're all set.
Actually I was pretty clear that the source of the idea was nintendo/famicom game entitled "Rygar" that found new life on the PS2. I'm not taking it too seriously; I rarely do so with my builds as I mentioned earlier.
Still, your attempt at humor is so weak that it pains me on your behalf.
"You try to say pithy things, but your wit is a hindrance."
I guess I'm a little bemused by the disbelief regarding this idea. Why would it be so odd to do this?
Maybe because I don't think there is one significant fighting style or culture in the entire history of man that has developed such a style? You'd think if the goal was trying to hurt your opponent that it might be obvious that using sharp pointy cutty things might be better than using big protective devices strapped to your arms. Sure you could hurt someone with a shield but generally, I think you are going to be a lot more concerned about a 9" dagger poking between your ribs than you will be about some guy trying to whack you over the head with the big, unwieldy shield thing strapped to his arm. The guy with the shields is flapping about like a chicken while you can't stop laughing. Come to think of it, maybe thats the strategy?
Actually I was pretty clear that the source of the idea was nintendo/famicom game entitled "Rygar" that found new life on the PS2. I'm not taking it too seriously; I rarely do so with my builds as I...
Ok, sure, if you are making a "silly" character then that could be really cool. If this was a "serious" character then I'd just look at you funny when you presented it to me as DM.
I guess I'm a little bemused by the disbelief regarding this idea. Why would it be so odd to do this?
Maybe because I don't think there is one significant fighting style or culture in the entire history of man that has developed such a style? You'd think if the goal was trying to hurt your opponent that it might be obvious that using sharp pointy cutty things might be better than using big protective devices strapped to your arms. Sure you could hurt someone with a shield but generally, I think you are going to be a lot more concerned about a 9" dagger poking between your ribs than you will be about some guy trying to whack you over the head with the big, unwieldy shield thing strapped to his arm. The guy with the shields is flapping about like a chicken while you can't stop laughing. Come to think of it, maybe thats the strategy?
I'm not so certain there's never been a shield-based fighting style, nor do I know what your requirements would be for it to be "significant" but that wouldn't be the litmus test for me. Sword and shield fighting is based around the idea that it is more utilitarian to chop or stab due in large part to the softness of metals used and bluntness of edges. However, the shield often had more influence on a people's fighting style than any other weapon; and was frequently a stronger symbol of a warrior than any bladed weapon. (Particularly in Greek and Roman cultures)
I think you're underestimating the value of a shield for offense both in and out of game; but that's cool. You don't have to think as I do.
Referring back to shield-based fighting styles; I suggest you look at the motions involved in fighting with sai and tonfa. Although made to focus the power of a thrust, both of these weapons are used for attack and defense quite effectively without being particularly sharp (sometimes the sai is) or having any great reach; and those fighting styles wouldn't take much alteration to benefit someone using a slower, heavier approximation with more surface area.
Actually I was pretty clear that the source of the idea was nintendo/famicom game entitled "Rygar" that found new life on the PS2. I'm not taking it too seriously; I rarely do so with my builds as I...
Ok, sure, if you are making a "silly" character then that could be really cool. If this was a "serious" character then I'd just look at you funny when you presented it to me as DM.
You misunderstand me. I mean that I'm not so wrapped up in the concept that I absolutely must convince everyone else to go along with it. I don't mean that I would play such a character as a clown. Rather, I would play them as someone who had a measured fighting style that emphasized defense and preferred to stand closer to an opponent to minimize the arc of their swings with longer weapons. Throwing would be a nice cherry on top, but that part was something of an optimization joke.
To top things off, take a look at this youtube video. Partly because it's awesome, and partly because what Tony Jaa does with elephant bones (3:39 in) is similar to how I could see a shield fighter working. Particularly when they break and become shields with sharp edges. This video also shows what a monk should be, IMO.
WARNING: There is baby elephant tossing involved.
Not to mention a monk having to get in much closer, unless they all happen to be Muhammud Ali.
You guys don't have much HTH combat experience, uh? You don't have to clinch to hit someone unless you're standing there digging at their ribs; a decent jab or hook can easily catch someone at arm's length, even if you're not Ali (because, let's face it, not many people are!). With a shield you have even LESS reach than unarmed, because it's strapped to your arm, so none of that distance counts towards reach.
Granted, slashing with a dagger from 3 ft. away is a LOT less efficient than getting in close and hooking someone in the gut with it... and when you're that close, he doesn't actually have room to swing a longsword. So, yes, there should be a "zero-foot" reach weapon category, which allows hands and knives (and shield slams) and disallows "normal" 5-ft. threat weapons -- like being in a grapple, only just being in the guy's square instead.
|
I actually think that it would be rather advantageous to fight with two shields as opposed to a pair of knives or short swords or whatever. Much easier to parry. I guess I'm a little bemused by the disbelief regarding this idea. Why would it be so odd to do this?
Debatable. Yes, you have more surface area to block with, however this equates to exactly that much more surface area blocking your field of view. Maybe not a big deal against an axe or hammer fighter who is taking big obvious swings, but someone with a quick thrusting weapon is going to be slipping between and around your defenses pretty quickly.
I'm not so certain there's never been a shield-based fighting style, nor do I know what your requirements would be for it to be "significant" but that wouldn't be the litmus test for me. Sword and shield fighting is based around the idea that it is more utilitarian to chop or stab due in large part to the softness of metals used and bluntness of edges. However, the shield often had more influence on a people's fighting style than any other weapon; and was frequently a stronger symbol of a warrior than any bladed weapon. (Particularly in Greek and Roman cultures)
Well, unless you can find evidence of one I think it is safe for the rest of us to assume there was not. The shields significant symbolism is strong, you're right about that. I think that's going to be more because defense is every bit as important as offence. Arguably even MORE important. For example, if one of two sword & board fighters loses his shield the outcome is pretty much written. Which is why the Hero in fantasy/medieval films is ALWAYS going to lose his shield when fighting the Big Bad. It puts him at that much more risk and makes his inevitable victory that much more emotionally satisfying.
I think you're underestimating the value of a shield for offense both in and out of game; but that's cool. You don't have to think as I do.
Referring back to shield-based fighting styles; I suggest you look at the motions involved in fighting with sai and tonfa. Although made to focus the power of a thrust, both of these weapons are used for attack and defense quite effectively without being particularly sharp (sometimes the sai is) or having any great reach; and those fighting styles wouldn't take much alteration to benefit someone using a slower, heavier...
I think you are overestimating the shields offensive value. Comparing them to tonfas or sai is... problematic at least. Yes, they (tonfas, sai, etc.) are good for offensive and defensive fighting, but they are also geared for fast, agile and mobile fighting. How fast do you think you can reverse direction with a bulky, heavy shield weighing down your arm? Coupled with the restricted field of vision I mentioned... I'm thinking a two shield fighter is a dead fighter.
|
|
Not to mention a monk having to get in much closer, unless they all happen to be Muhammud Ali.You guys don't have much HTH combat experience, uh? You don't have to clinch to hit someone unless you're standing there digging at their ribs; a decent jab or hook can easily catch someone at arm's length, even if you're not Ali (because, let's face it, not many people are!). With a shield you have even LESS reach than unarmed, because it's strapped to your arm, so none of that distance counts towards reach.
Granted, slashing with a dagger from 3 ft. away is a LOT less efficient than getting in close and hooking someone in the gut with it... and when you're that close, he doesn't actually have room to swing a longsword. So, yes, there should be a "zero-foot" reach weapon category, which allows hands and knives (and shield slams) and disallows "normal" 5-ft. threat weapons -- like being in a grapple, only just being in the guy's square instead.
sudden horrible idea...sneaky halfling rogue with a knife, climbing up your thigh, stabbing all the way...no easy way to get him with a longsword or even shortsword, and your knife is likely still in its sheath.
if im not mistaken, theres a close-fighting type feat (underfoot combat, maybe) or something similar in the Comp Warrior or PHB2
/threadjack
-t
That's what I'm thinking. I mean, what are you trying to make, Captain America?.Abraham did.
?
A lot of talk about using two shields
There's really flat out no benefit to using the second shield. You get no shield bonus from it. You might possibly be able some of the extra abilities, but the damage is pants.
I've about convinced myself that an optimal Shield build is to take most of the feats in the shield line, take most of the feats in the TWF line.
For equipment, use a Heavy Spiked Shield as your "primary" one handed weapon. Then use Armor Spikes as your light offhand weapon. They both do 1d6 damage, can both be enchanted as weapons, and this leaves you one hand free for some other tactical options.
Perhaps use a whip, bolas, or other thrown weapon so you have some ranged or CMB capability near to hand at all times.
I can kind of see a crazy dwarf fighter running around doing this.
Edited to remove a bad sling idea...
|
Basically I'd like to get two weapon fighting going with a pair of shields, but I'd prefer to be able to throw them and still retain a shield bonus at all times. Barring a returning special ability, I might just need to tie a string to them...
Okay, so while I'm not terribly opposed to a two shield character concpet (although it does bug me) I am opposed to the idea of I throw my shield and keep the shield bonus for the round idea. I'm fine with throwing shields and with the returning ability, but throwing your defense away and then expecting it to still provide a defensive bonus is kinda pushing it too far. However, not one to be an ass and say no, here's how I'd do it.
Feat chain
You may don a shield as a free action
Imp Shield bash
pre-req: Imp shield bash, Two Weapon Fighting, BAB +4.
If wielding a shield in both hands and not bashing with the off hand shield you may add half the off hand shields bonus to your AC, this will stack with the shield bonus from your Primary hand.
normal:Shield bonuses do not stack.
Feat from the complete warrior that lets you throw shields
Shield Master
pre-req Defensive Wall, Shield Master.
When dual weilding shields you may add the shield bonus from your off hand to your AC when not using it to shield bash, If you shield bash with the off hand shield you may add half the off hand shield's bonus to your AC.
pre-reqImproved Defensive Wall, BAB +15
When dual weilding shields your off hand shield bonus stacks with your primary shield bonus at all times.
Basically the idea is that the off hand is a choice between defense and offense. Then if you have quick defense and a reliable method to get your shield back each round I would rule that you could keep your defensive bonus while throwing your shields. Just so you know the whole on a string would only work if you took no move action and only a standard action to attack, because it would require a move action to reel the shield back in. Of course you could always get a feat to snap it back to you, I had a player in one game who had a weapon called a chian maul that did that.
|
|
I've about convinced myself that an optimal Shield build is to take most of the feats in the shield line, take most of the feats in the TWF line.
For equipment, use a Heavy Spiked Shield as your "primary" one handed weapon. Then use Armor Spikes as your light offhand weapon. They both do 1d6 damage, can both be enchanted as weapons, and this leaves you one hand free for some other tactical options.
Perhaps use a whip, bolas, or other thrown weapon so you have some ranged or CMB capability near to hand at all times.
I can kind of see a crazy dwarf fighter running around doing this.
Now, this is an interesting idea. I may just steal it.
?That's what I'm thinking. I mean, what are you trying to make, Captain America?.Abraham did.
I did a build once dubbed "Captain America" One shield at higher levels, very amusing rather effective.
I've also done "Mega Man", "Zero", "T-2000" and a few others for the fun of seeing if I could.
**************************************
Beyond all of this it is incorrect to think of the shield as a defensive weapon. It was very much used for offense and training to use it that way was extensively used. Even the Buckler was used for offensive combat maneuvers rather effectively (it's basically a gauntlet that's gripped instead of worn). When fighting with a shield (especially a "heater" shield) you generally keep the lower edge up and towards the opponent. This keeps them back more, allows you to strike with the edge (focused force) and provides more protect/deflective angles than holding it flat (as seen when the woman's shield gets smashed in LOTR, or as I call it, "Why not to intercept a blow"). Spikes on the front of a shield were not common, however edgings and occasional blades sticking out of the ends or the Boss were seen. Actual spikes actual impair the function of a shield and weaken it at the same time.
Contrary to popular belief a Tower shield is generally the same size as a Hoplite's Shield, or the Kite shield. The hour glass shields of Troy would be another example as are the roman shield the Legionaries used.
In fact if facing someone with polearms the Romans would walk their shields into the tips to give them control over where the weapon could go, afterwards sending troops without shields between the poles to start breaking the weapons or stabbing those using them before retreating behind the shields again.
Shields were also considered a prime tripping, disarming, and feinting tool. When you look at a historical heater shield you might notice a groove cut into the top of it. This was used for locking in opponent's weapons so as to pull them out of their hands.
Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.
Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
Actually a good amount of experience and training. However that is neither here not there, your reach with your hands (or a dagger) is still shorter than your reach with a sword (or a polearm)... which of course is part of the reason such weapons were developed. The farther you can be and still hit your opponent the less likely it is that your opponent will hit you.
However again we get back to the "abstract" nature of D&D combat. Just like a 5 foot step the "reach" of the weapon and wielder is an artificial construct to simplify combat enough to keep the game playable.
However again we get back to the "abstract" nature of D&D combat. Just like a 5 foot step the "reach" of the weapon and wielder is an artificial construct to simplify combat enough to keep the game playable.
Right, but we do have a 10-ft. reach (most polearms and spiked chains) vs. 5-ft. reach (almost everything else) distinction, and the rule that the polearm guy who can hit you at 10 ft. can't attack you when you're only 5 ft. away from him (at least, not without feat investment and/or penalties; we'll see how the final rules address that).
I'm just wondering if it wouldn't make sense at the same time to have a 0-ft. reach category (daggers), at which a longsword-armed guy can't effectively strike at you. That would still maintain a high degree of abstraction (3 distinct bands based on 5-ft. miniatures "squares," instead of a continuous spectrum), but would add usefulness to daggers that we don't often currently see.
|
Quite possibly, but would it work with throwing the shield? Rules-wise I mean.
It says you can keep the AC bonus while attacking, so as long as the shield returns to your hand instantly I think you're okay... *starts scribbling notes*
Any thoughts on my "Two Shield Fighting" feat idea? Maybe call the offhand shield a circumstance bonus to AC?
For the sake of your sanity :), perhaps you could wield a small/large shield in one hand and a buckler in the other? Then you could hold a melee weapon with a range increment in your buckler hand for ranged attacks, daggers for instance).
I think either way you may need to make a house rule. I don't think there is any thing out there to allow the AC bonus of both shields to stack (could be wrong though as I have few splat books).
Chakrams...they could be little shields...LoL
Yes, it would make sense to have a 0 foot reach weapon, but then small creatures with short swords would have 0 reach also, since a small short sword is actually a dagger...they also should only have a 2.5 ft step...and giants should have a 10 ft step...there are so many little inconsistencies, we could go on all day...
Basically you should be able to step your own square size...
Also something with a 90ft move (high level monk...should have a 15 ft step...cuz a step should be 1/6th of your move...effectively.
However again we get back to the "abstract" nature of D&D combat. Just like a 5 foot step the "reach" of the weapon and wielder is an artificial construct to simplify combat enough to keep the game playable.Right, but we do have a 10-ft. reach (most polearms and spiked chains) vs. 5-ft. reach (almost everything else) distinction, and the rule that the polearm guy who can hit you at 10 ft. can't attack you when you're only 5 ft. away from him (at least, not without feat investment and/or penalties; we'll see how the final rules address that).
I'm just wondering if it wouldn't make sense at the same time to have a 0-ft. reach category (daggers), at which a longsword-armed guy can't effectively strike at you. That would still maintain a high degree of abstraction (3 distinct bands based on 5-ft. miniatures "squares," instead of a continuous spectrum), but would add usefulness to daggers that we don't often currently see.
That would be interesting and fun to go over... lets do it in a new thread though so we don't off topic this one. Start it up and I'll be there after dinner.
|
|
Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
I've considered taking some Judo, which seems to be the utter anti-thesis of Taekwondo. Close combat, throws and grapples. I'm built rather like a bear, short legs but good sized arms. I'll get around to it one day (says the procrastinator)
That would be interesting and fun to go over... lets do it in a new thread though so we don't off topic this one. Start it up and I'll be there after dinner.
Righto: thread started HERE. Anyone is welcome!
Regarding shield reach specifically: with a shield on one arm as you describe, I have little problem with treating it as a "normal" 1-handed weapon in terms of reach, because you can face the striking edge to your opponent. But fighting with two heavy shields, do you swivel back and forth like a penguin? I can't imagine it would be too hard for someone to trip you, or just stab you in the face, while you're waddling around trying to get the other shield to bear.
|
|
I've considered taking some Judo, which seems to be the utter anti-thesis of Taekwondo. Close combat, throws and grapples. I'm built rather like a bear, short legs but good sized arms. I'll get around to it one day (says the procrastinator)Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
sorry, last threadjack...
I took Tae Kwon Do, American Gojo Ryu and Choy Li Fut kung fu...my children are in Hung Gar style kung fu...I have to say, my Tae Kwon Do looked really cool, (Flying Jump Side Kicks 6 feet off the ground) but the other styles are more effective.
Judo, it's OK, I prefer kung fu styles since they teach a bit of everything...and if you can keep a grappler from grappling, you've disarmed them...
Grumble Grog was a crazy fighter with his Full plate + Shield and Armor training, maybe that's why armor training is gone...he had a 58 AC at level 20...and could add to it...
I have to say, my Tae Kwon Do looked really cool, (Flying Jump Side Kicks 6 feet off the ground) but the other styles are more effective.
When I asked the instructor "what good is being able to kick seven feet off the floor?" he replied, "because if you can do that, you can also kick his knee REALLY hard!" As the proverb says, the taekwondo master on his death bed called the pupils in to tell them his deepest secret. "In real life," he said with his last beath, "never kick above the waist."
That said, I still had to augment it with hapkido training for close infighting; taekwondo is great for someone 5 ft. away, but fairly lousy for someone on top of you. I really want to study some Muy Thai now...
The funny thing being if you can generate all that power like you are supposed to with tae kwon Do, the you are doing it in the hips and thighs... which means those knees hurt people if you strike with them.
Tae Kwon Do can work at all ranges, provided you practice at all ranges. There is also a reason it includes punches, elbow strikes, and such as well...
Not to mention a monk having to get in much closer, unless they all happen to be Muhammud Ali.You guys don't have much HTH combat experience, uh? You don't have to clinch to hit someone unless you're standing there digging at their ribs; a decent jab or hook can easily catch someone at arm's length, even if you're not Ali (because, let's face it, not many people are!). With a shield you have even LESS reach than unarmed, because it's strapped to your arm, so none of that distance counts towards reach.
Granted, slashing with a dagger from 3 ft. away is a LOT less efficient than getting in close and hooking someone in the gut with it... and when you're that close, he doesn't actually have room to swing a longsword. So, yes, there should be a "zero-foot" reach weapon category, which allows hands and knives (and shield slams) and disallows "normal" 5-ft. threat weapons -- like being in a grapple, only just being in the guy's square instead.
Actually quite a bit of experience here, but I'd prefer not to go all internet tough-guy. Shields tend to extend your reach slightly or keep it the same, depending on how they're held. I think you're making the erroneous assumption that any attack with a shield must be a charge or bash. A buckler, strapped to the forearm, I could see as having shorter reach.
A zero foot reach, as pointed out in the thread you made about it, would be an unnecessary complication for a variety of reasons. (Best discussed in your thread)
words
This is fun! I've never been the "crazy" who is fussed at by everyone before. =D
Well, assume away, but don't sneer at me if I refuse to go along with it.
The idea that shields have to be huge and heavy is misguided, particularly in D&D where they can be made of lighter materials. But even a thin steel shield with a bit of banding on the back or front would be very sturdy and relatively light. (People are wielding 10-15 lbs. weapons regularly, after all)
As for blocking your view, I think the image you have is of hiding behind the shield, where I would prefer to use it for both blocking and parrying. If it were true that you could never see a quick-moving opponent, then it would be as true for a single shield as for two.
I'll grant you this, if I were holding two pieces of stone, one inch thick and five feet across; it would probably be pretty difficult to fight. I was thinking two small mithral shields, so no, not the same as your assumptions.
if im not mistaken, theres a close-fighting type feat (underfoot combat, maybe) or something similar in the Comp Warrior or PHB2
/threadjack
-t
I think the style feat you're thinking of only works if the opponent is 2 or more size categories bigger.
common sense
/golf clap
I've considered taking some Judo, which seems to be the utter anti-thesis of Taekwondo. Close combat, throws and grapples. I'm built rather like a bear, short legs but good sized arms. I'll get around to it one day (says the procrastinator)Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
You might consider aikido. I'm not being a hater here, as I've studied it myself, but Tae Kwon Do is a sub-par choice for an actual fight.
As the proverb says, the taekwondo master on his death bed called the pupils in to tell them his deepest secret. "In real life," he said with his last beath, "never kick above the waist."
Heh. I like that. I haven't practiced myself, but I've known some Muay Thai boxers, and be aware going in: that **** hurts. They do a lot of toughening exercises.
You might consider aikido. I'm not being a hater here, as I've studied it myself, but Tae Kwon Do is a sub-par choice for an actual fight.I've considered taking some Judo, which seems to be the utter anti-thesis of Taekwondo. Close combat, throws and grapples. I'm built rather like a bear, short legs but good sized arms. I'll get around to it one day (says the procrastinator)Boxing mainly, where you have to be close to hit effectively.Ah, OK. When I got tired of being beaten up every day in junior high, I got heavily into taekwondo, which among other things emphasizes reach (I'm a small guy with short arms) -- some of the techniques were originally developed for an unarmed attacker vs. armed horsemen. At the peak of my training some years later, I had absolute control of a roughly 10-ft. radius around me (which has now unfortunately contracted to near-zero).
Hmmm, not too many of us Aikido students out there. I only spent about a year and a half studying Aikido, but that year and a half took me from average results in brown-belt Karate tournaments to winning in black belt Karate tournaments and I wasn't even taking any hard-form martial arts styles at the time. Just the massive improvements on my defense, and all that yummy ki goodness, and now suddenly black belts were having a great deal of difficulty hitting me.
Of course, in that year and a half, I didn't learn diddly about hitting them either, and point tournaments disqualify fighters for using any throws or grapples, so I had a great deal of difficulty hitting the black belts too.
Made for some very long boring defensive fights, but I'm also a professional chess player, and I had more patience than most of those black belt guys, so we danced around until they got frustrated and overextended, overcommitted, and I could usually take advantage of it for the point.
Those were fun days.
Tae Kwon Do is flashy. Too flashy. And too slow. And most of the guys I've met, trained with (I took Tae Kwon Do for a year), sparred with, and faced in tourneys, don't get the fact that leading off with a spinning round kick to your opponent's nose is a great way to win a fight against someone with no training, but it's also a great way to lose a fight against anyone with training. Finish with that stuff when your opponent is dazed and reeling, but never lead off with it. Otherwise, it's just for show-and-tell to impress the ladies.