Tell you what, find your nearest SCAdian, have them double up with shields, and go to town. See if it looks even moderately effective.
I think you would see that it would be as effective as shield/"name your blunt object" And you would see that the person gains more defense... which for some reason does not work by RAW (possibly a balance thing, ive not played high enough lvl games to know).
I came to the same problem here. This is that the game does not support using TWF with different weapons very well. As others have said, easiest way is to use two shields.
Focus as much as you can with shield slam and critical hit feats, while taking on as many shield feats as you can.
Your only problem with this is going to be that by RAW shieldbashes can only be an offhand weapon.
Not true.
Nothing can only be an offhand weapon. That is plain silly. Are you saying that a man with no weapons at all grabs a shield off a fallen solder and wants to bash some orc, and he can *only* do it as an offhand weapon? He can't just slip it on his primary arm and bash away?
Your actually suggesting (or claiming that the RAW is suggesting) that normal people can do something with their off-hand but find it [b]impossible[/i] to do that same thing with their primary hand?
Impossible?
Poppycock.
Let's call it what it is: when the authors wrote "You can bash an opponent with a heavy/light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon" they were assuming you had a weapon in your primary hand. Since you're actually trying to kill your enemies, it stands to reason that you have a weapon. If you also have a shield, it stands to reason that it's in your off-hand.
That's all they were thinking.
Don't let their careless and needless phrase at the end of that sentence fool you into some silly notion that what you can do with your off-hand is impossible to do with your primary hand.
The only reason they added that phrase was to make it clear that when you fight with a weapon and a shield, your shield can be used as an off-hand weapon and would therefore follow all the usual off-hand weapon and two-weapon-fighting rules.
In other words, that phrase is not prohibitive of primary attacks, it is merely inclusive of off-hand attacks.
I wouldn't think this could get much clearer.
Shields are weapons. Primarily defensive weapons, but still weapons. A big round flat dull main gauche.
-Weylin
Shields are crappy weapons. Big round flat dull slow exhausting limited-reach vision-impairing weapons.
This is why nobody ever deliberately went into battle with just a shield. Probably millions of men have deliberately gone to battle with spears, glaives, axes, greatswords, and many other 2H weapons, as well as occasionally with just a 1h weapon and nothing in their other hand.
But nobody has ever deliberately chosen to wield a solitary shield with no weapon, using that shield as his only and primary weapon.
So wait.. you are saying by RAW you can not even put a shield in your main hand? Even if you do not intend to bash with it or gain a shield bonus?
I am not even trying to get more bashes.
If you don't want the AC or the bash, then why wear it? Looks?
I get the impression that you think "shield bash" is some kind of mystical attack that is unique and/or special.
Nope.
It's just the game term for hitting someone with a shield.
I don't care whether you're talking about ramming him with the flat face of your shield, with or without spikes, or whether you mean to punch him with the edge of your shield, or any other way you can think of to make your shield connect with his body.
It's all bashing.
So, unless I miss my guess, given that clarification, it seems you do want to get more bashing, right?
"Spartan Shield Shrug", grasshopper. A not uncommon greek tactic or shield tactic in general. Involves rleveraging your shield up into your opponents head while they are in front of you. It comes in on their usual sword-arm side, so not much defensive options. Capable of crushing your skull or breaking your neck in one move( far more than just the 1d3 for shield bash).
Most shields have always been defensive weapons, more than part of your armor, that were regularly switched to an offensive role in combat...with the exception of very large ones like tower shields. In fencing bucklers were used to punch as much as block. Some even had sharpened edges (not very sporting but effective).
If you fought a norseman you were as likely to get that shield in your face as you were his axe in your shoulder. That agile italian fencing master may use his buckler to disarm you by striking your wrist with the edge of his buckler.
All great examples.
But you do realize, don't you, that such attacks were always opportunity attacks.
No, I don't mean silly gamist AoO rules. I mean the warriors you describe were definitely looking to spear you, axe you, or gut you with his sword. However, if you got in close, and if he found himself in a poor position to make good on his primary weapon, he was trained to effectively bash you with his shield. Usually an attempt to get you off balance or maybe disarm you, maybe daze you, but always to set you up to be vulnerable to his next attack with a real weapon.
None of those guys approached their opponent thinking "all right, I'm holding this here axe, but I sure hope I don't have to waste my time swinging it when I have this lovely shield that will kill my enemy so much faster or easier."
I'm fully aware that shields are capable weapons. I'm not seeing how you could effectively use TWO shields at the same time against the same opponent.
Yeah you're right man. You can't fight effectively with two shields, but then again I have never seen how anyone could fight effectively with a "spiked chain" and yet it was one of the most powerful weapons in 3.5
Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief :)
You know, there are various levels of disbelief, and some of them are easier to suspend than others.
Chains have, from time to time, been used effectively as weapons. Not soldiers in formation, of course, but for personal, individual, or even skirmish use. Rare but doable.
(no, not the silly things that were drawn in the 3.5 or Pathfinder books that are utterly worthless as weapons).
On the other hand, nobody (to my knowledge) has ever gained fame by fighting with two shields and nothing else.
I'm not saying it's never been tried, but AFAIK, history says nothing of it, anywhere.
And for good reason.
Do i really need to point you at how many martial arts forms, both armed and without weapons involve spinning your body? There are many.
It's one thing to rotate your torso and flex into a spin with empty hands and feet, or even wielding a light stick or sai or even a katana.
But the more weight you put into it, the more effort it takes, and the slower it goes. To say nothing of doing it with two big sails strapped to your arms, with all their wind resistance and drag slowing you down even more.
No, pulling a Jean Claude jumping/spinning back wheel kick 5' off the floor is fast. Doing it with two big old clumsy, bulky, heavy, wind-resistant weights on your arms is not fast.
Sometime, ask an engineer to explain how a flywheel works.
Sometimes someone is fast enogh to try for them, often they are not.
We're talking about life-n-death combat with deadly weapons and deadly intent.
It only takes a fraction of a second for your enemy to kill you. Dead.
Are you willing to risk your life that you are faster than everything and everyone you ever fight? Faster than all of them? Because it will only take one of them to be just a little bit faster than you and you're dead.
That's why real warriors in our world where death is always permanent don't turn their backs on ready and able defenders. Even martial artists (real ones, not movie ones) save the spinning stuff for a finishing move after they've pummeled their opponent into a stupor first.
Now put it in game terms. All it takes is one readied attack - "I ready my attack for when this idiot with two shields turns his back on me because I know that's what he will do." - and you get pasted in the back, and any decent DM won't give you any shield AC because you've already begun your 2WF maneuver, meaning you're using them both as weapons so you get no AC from them. And a cunning DM might even take away your DEX, or allow Sneak Attacks, since your back is turned.
No, don't even think about spin moves in a game where enemies can ready an action - especially if you're armed with an obvious combat style that pretty much requires you to use spin moves to attack effectively - in martial arts, we call that "telegraphing your attack."
First not every attack would be a shild bash...
Yes, they will. All of them.
Because "shield bash" is just game-talk for "attacking with a shield". It's not a special move.
I agree that does not make sense. But an example of the bash is perfectly displayed in 300 when Leonidas goes crazy and ends the routine with a bash... this was not the running put everything hes got into it move that some people think a bash has to be, and that is exactly how I see a bash in my head.
Yes, that is one kind of shield bash.
Dont forget that you are not just hitting with the flat of the shield, the edges are perfectly viable weapons as well.
Yes, you can shield bash with the edges, too.
Again.. not a bash but still an attack, one where turning your back is not necessary.
Still a shield bash, but you're right, you wouldn't have to turn your back for this. It's terribly short range (about as much range as a dagger) and wickedly slow (same weight as an axe), but you can do it.
I can take a shield and thrust with it like a punch, chop with it like an axe or even uppercut with it.
All perfectly valid examples of shield bashes.
If that explaination does not make the scene make more sense to you then I dont know how to explain it.
You've explained it quite well. Now it's time for you to stop getting hung up on some notion that the only way to bash with a shield is to smack someone with the flat front face of it.
Again I am not looking for extra bashs here
Yes you are.
That's OK though. Everyone who wants to use two weapons is looking for extra attacks. In your case, here, you're looking for extra attacks with your two shields. In this game, we call those attacks "shield bashes".
or even extra AC (though that should work!).
No, the AC from a shield is not gained by just letting it dangle there on your arm. You move it around, you pivot and turn and place your shield between you and an incoming attack (you know your enemies try NOT to strike your shield, right? They don't make it easy by trying to bullseye your shield with every strike; in fact, they try to avoid it, so it's your job to move it into their way).
You can't do that with both shields at the same time against the same attack.
Even if you did, one of those shields would be in front of the other one, and the front one would do the blocking while the back one did nothing.
One shield AC is all you get, and not even that if you're too busy bashing with it to defend with it.
I enjoy the fact that even fantasy has physics involved in it. Once you accept that magic exists you still have boundaries and I do not feel like 2 shields is outside those boundaries anymore than 2 battle axes (which are the same weight).
In this, I believe you're quite right.
Further, I don't believe anyone every used two big full-sized battleaxes any more than I believe anyone ever used two shields.
However, if someone were big and strong enough to pull it off, I am almost 100% certain they would choose the two axes.
Why?
Because they actually want to kill their enemies, and shields have no killing power and no range and are too bulky (weight and bulk are two different matters).
Of course, the smart ones would choose one axe and one shield and get the best of both worlds.
A shield... at least every shield I have ever seen except a buckler extends out past the hand in a circle. The hand may not be in the center of the shield but it is close. We are obviously not seeing the same picture here. I think they would be helpful.
No, the center of the shield is in the center of your arm. Measure from your elbow to your first knuckles, find the center, and that's where the center of your shield should be.
Anything else and it's off balance.
This puts your closed fist only a few inches away from the edge of the shield (exactly how far depends on the size and design of the shield).
A few inches is horrible reach for a serious weapon.
You might pull it off with a dagger, but in that case, you're relying on speed. Shield's are heavy and bulky, and definitely not speedy.
Nobody in their right mind would choose a weapon with the same reach as a crappy dagger, less killing potential, and horrible speed, as their primary weapon of choice. To my knowledge, nobody ever has.
Just like you never see any ancient or medieval army taking to the battlefield armed with daggers.
Turning your back on the opponent is only an issue if they are better than you or maybe equal to you.
I've spoken to this, scroll up a few posts.
The short of it is, do you really believe that you are better than everything you fight? Everything?
No sane person will choose a suicidal combat style on the assumption that they are better than every opponent they will ever face. You only have to fight one guy who is faster, better, or luckier than you and suddenly you're dead.
On the other hand, if you choose a balanced, solid, and effective (non-suicidal) combat style, your odds of suviving each fight greatly improve.
You might still find someone better than you who beats you, but at least you won't make it easy for him.
Fully understand that, Blake. Part of my stance is also not the static extension of armor many see them as. With the exception of tower typw shields, they were as much an off-hand weapon as the main gauche many times.None of those guys approached their opponent thinking "all right, I'm holding this here axe, but I sure hope I don't have to waste my time swinging it when I have this lovely shield that will kill my enemy so much faster or easier."
Thank you for making my point.
The main-gauche was NOT a primary attack weapon. For every one attack made with a main-gauche, that swordsman probably made 10 or 20 or more attacks with his sword or rapier.
If he ever did attack with main-gauche, it was because an opportunity presented itself (and that really means the opponent screwed up).
No swordsman ever approached their opponent thinking "all right, I'm holding this swrod, but I sure hope I don't have to waste my time swinging it when I have this lovely main-gauche that will kill my enemy so much faster or easier."
And far more dangerous as such than most games give them credit for being.
Of course they were!
Every weapon in real life is far more dangerous than D&D/Pathfinder gives them credit for.
Heck, an average man in D&D probably has to hit an average 1st level fighter 4-5 times with a main-gauche to kill him.
I bet I could kill you, or you could kill me, in real life, with just a single strike from that main-gauche. I can safely claim to be at least a level 1 fighter - or monk - after a decade of learning and teaching martial arts, but there is no way I would expect to survive being stabbed with a main gauche; if I were, I might survive, but I would count myself lucky.
An opportunist shield strike could be just as lethal as that sword he is carrying and comming in with a larger weapon (the shield) on your weaponside could make defending harder.
Of course. A real-world shield can kill a real-world man.
The local ER deals almost nightly with people who suffer life-threatening wounds (e.g. they would die without medical treatment) from things far less deadly than a shield, main-gauche, dagger, sword, etc.
But, in the real world, if you had to fight a trained combatant, and he has a sword, which would you choose? A shield, or a sword?
It's not about the question of whether a shield can kill a man. It's about how easily it can be done. For a sword, it's very easy. For a shield, it's very difficult.
It is much like watching the german long sword styles. The blade was not the only part of the weapon used. The was true when it came to weapon-and-shield fighters. Where a long sword wielder might use the crossguard, pommel or even his elbow (which is part of my issue with "unarmed means AOO" unless you have the feat) as part of his fighting, many weapon-and-shield fighters used their shield in addition to their primary weapon.
Only if an opportunity presents itself, which was often only when their enemy screws up.
Sure they train for it, the practice it, and they look for it in battle. Heck, they might even try to create the opportunity from time to time.
But, ultimately, it's still just an opportunity attack because the blade of their sword is far more efficient at killing their foe than their shield ever could be.
Using a pair of light shields (which to me have always been Targe or Norse Round Shield in size...about two feet diameter) Could easily have a school or culture that did develop paired light shields a martial art. And possible with a minimum of feats to do so.
Heck, there might have been a dozen such cultures. Or a hundred.
But history doesn't teach us about any of them because their enemies wiped them out and destroyed their culture, mainly because their warriors on the battlefield couldn't cope with enemies wielding real weapons.
Probably a good thing, too. Survival of the fittest, Darwin, evolution...
I much prefer evolving from ancestors who were *NOT* foolish enough to put their survival (and my eventual existence) into the hands of warriors that incompetent.
Ok Blake you are right about the extra "bashes". When I was writing that I was thinking of the "Shield Slam" feat where you gain a bull rush with a bash. My fault on not clarifying. I meant to say not every attack with a shield should get a bull rush.
Even if you did, one of those shields would be in front of the other one, and the front one would do the blocking while the back one did nothing.
By this reasoning armor does nothing either. Putting 2 shields between you and an attack would give no extra defense? I couldn't disagree more. But as you said, using shields is about moving around and getting them in the way of attacks. Isnt it easier to get a shield in the way of an attack than a sword to parry? Then why not another shield to make it even easier? Using the book stats a shield is not much heavier than a sword (and this is not taking into account mithril or something) so I can see the trained fighter being able to sustain combat for a while with 2 shields. So I am sure your argument will be that the big bulky shield gets in the way of the other making it harder to deflect blows. Again I say we are talking about someoen who trianed in this style... just like someone who trained using 2 swords. You cant just pick up 2 swords and be proficient, you would be banging those swords together like mad until you got the hang of it... same with using 2 shields.
With all this talk of different fighting styles I think it would be obvious that.. for example: You are using 2 shields, and facing a guy with 2 swords. This would give more defense because you can block each sword with a shield. But I am not here to argue that 2 shields should give more defense.
You have already admitted that this option was possible, you just dont like it. In your mind you can not see it and that is fine with me. My original post was to get advise about a sword/heavy sheild build (view above to see what I ask) and see what people would do with the feats. My concept of a guy running in with 2 shields is fun to me and I personally feel that it would be very effective. The debate of its effectiveness in real combat can be argued forever. The only way to see for sure is have someone who knows how to use a shield try it. As we do not have that option then we will never have a definative answer.
On the note of history. I am a pretty big fan of history but I dont concider myself a tomb of knowledge about it. I will not argue that you may be right about why we do not see the use of two shields in history. But on the other hand, the use of 2 weapons period was not as popular as some believe. The fighting style was hard to master and easy to defeat if you were not exceptional. This is why even the samurai went to guns when they were available, Zen archery was far far superior to the guns at that time but it took 20 years to get that good, where it took only a couple to teach someone the gun. Hollywood has done a lot for the 2 weapon wielding fans out there. Again, the style is strong but very heard to learn... as fighting effectively with 2 shields would be.
|
Two shield fighting is indeed silly, but I love the visual. I guess I can pick this one place to identify with the people who think that the spiked chain is completely reasonable. Heck, two shield fighting is right up there with halfling skiprocks and talanta boomerangs...
But I love it just the same. If I were to ever play such a thing (or any of my players were to express an interest), I'd go with the feats and Fighting Style for two-shield-fu in Plot & Poison, and, most likely, apply it to the Klar (or Athasian Tortoise-blade, which is pretty much the same thing), which is a way cooler (and probably more effective) shield-weapon than the plain old spiked shield.
Realistically (I laugh as I say this), a shield-bash attack should probably provoke an attack of opportunity if used against someone with a better weapon. Then again, if D&D went to this level of pickiness, a dagger should provoke an AoO if used against someone holding a sword, and a spear or polearm-user should have a chance to perforate anyone entering melee range before they even get a swing with a sword or axe.
|
Im sorry to have to repeat myself but there are so many things wrong in this post its getting out of hand...
Firstly You cannot "Fight" with two shields of light or heavy, You can wear two if you like but doing so will totally impede you as you have to "grasp" those shields using up both hands.
Bucklers would work better since they are strapped to your forearm and you do not have to "grasp" them but as you pointed out you cannot attack with a buckler.
Onto the Rules ... by RAW
SHIELDS ARE NOT WEAPONS!
"Under Weapon Entry"
- Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
- Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense."Under Armor Entry"
- Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.
- Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
-Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."under getting into and out of armor"
- Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.
- Removing a shield from the arm and dropping it is only a move action.
Let me emphasise this some more "You can bash with a shield like it was a weapon but that doesnt make it a weapon". "You can hit someone with a chair but it doesnt make a chair a weapon!"
And before someone chimes in and says a chair is an improvised weapon ITS NOT! its used AS IF it was an improvised weapon.I dont care if you think necks and bones can be broken with a shield its still not a weapon, you can break necks and bones with a chair or even a metal serving tray just as easy if you hit them in the right place. And as for the damage; you hit someone in the neck with a shield it does 1d3/1d4 you hit them in the neck with a sword it does 1d6/1d8. Which one do you think will also remove the head from that neck? Do you honestly think that 1d8 is enough damage to represent someone being decapitated????
-----------------------------------------------------
Ok now I got that off my chest lets move onto the idea of fighting with 2 shields worn.
Firstly having two shields provides no extra bonus to your AC. Shield bonuses do not stack. Yes you can wear two shields, shield bash with one (suffering the penalties for an offhand attack and still retaining a shield bonus to AC from the other) but what happens when you want to draw your sword?
Firstly, yes you can draw a weapon (now you are wearing two shields and holding a sword!) but you cannot attack with that weapon even with light shields. (see quote above)
Second you will have to remove one shield to use the sword. This involves spending a move action to take off and drop the shield (or a free action if you are actually moving and have a +1 BAB). Until you have a high BAB to get two attacks this isnt much of a problem but if you have just charged into someone with two shields you are now standing infront of them and must spend a move action dropping your shield and a second move action drawing your sword. This means you can only bash with the offhand as a standard action for 2 rounds! You can reduce this to 1 round with the Quickdraw feat but thats 1 round of Full Attack that you have lost! (and no you cannot draw a weapon as part of the 5ft step it has to be a regular move.)
----------------------------------------------------
Nothing can only be an offhand weapon. That is plain silly. Are you saying that a man with no weapons at all grabs a shield off a fallen solder and wants to bash some orc, and he can *only* do it as an offhand weapon? He can't just slip it on his primary arm and bash away?
Your actually suggesting (or claiming that the RAW is suggesting) that normal people can do something with their off-hand but find it [b]impossible[/i] to do that same thing with their primary hand?
Impossible?
Poppycock.
@ DM_Blake - Your missing the point of shields and how they are used.
If someone wanted to use a shield as a weapon they may do so but must suffer the -4 penalty for using it as an improvised weapon (and using two hands to do so also). By strapping the shield to your forearm you are now wearing the shield and can use it as an off-hand blundgeoning weapon reducing the penalty to -2.
Shields are not designed for fighting with so a shield will never be as effective as a weapon (hense the -2), but when they are strapped to your arm they now become a part of your body making them less cumbersome as an improvised weapon (-4)
Quijenoth, it seems that your whole argument is that a shield is not and cannot be a weapon. By RAW, on page 152 it specifically states that a shield is a weapon if used as a weapon. Even goes into saying it is a one handed martial weapon and can be enchanted as a weapon.
I have already argued how using 2 shields makes sense in a realistic picture. Trying to argue by RAW that it is not a weapon is wrong. (A standard teaching of Karate and Kempo is that blocks are strikes, for example)
Then talking about grabbing something in your hand. I understand that it says you "strap" the shield to your arm but that is not how it works. You slide your arm through a loop and grasp a handle. Thus you can drop the shield whenever you want as a free action. Hell you can even throw the shield off your arm as a ranged attack (of course this would incur many penalties but it is very possible).
I think it's important to try and respect everyones opinion as much as possible - I mean, we're all here to have fun, right? - but I'm sorry to say, the idea of a guy wading into battle with a full sized shield on each arm is just silly.
Firstly, you'd look some some sort of ungainly, metal clad, flightless bird with wings too large for you. Secondly, have you seen how big a full-sized shield is? They're big, they're heavy, and while I wouldnt want to catch the leading edge of one across my jaw, I don't see how a combatant could possibly put enough power behind one shield strike, then reorient and prepare for a strike with the other, before any reasonably skilled opponent would catch them with a quick thrust.
I know some people here arent big on bringing undue realism into the game, and thats fair, but come on - lets not jump the shark here. It's an interesting idea that's just untenable.
Just as an aside, but what exactly is the Golarion 'Klah'? Is it a weapon with a defensive bonus? Or is it a shield with an offensive bonus?
Knowing which way that goes might make for an interesting shift.
Can a fighter take "Shield Bonus" as a feat? Is there such a beast?
Just wonderings and musings, sorry to intrude.
Cheers!
The klar offers a shieldbonus to its wielder.
I think it's important to try and respect everyones opinion as much as possible - I mean, we're all here to have fun, right? - but I'm sorry to say, the idea of a guy wading into battle with a full sized shield on each arm is just silly.
Firstly, you'd look some some sort of ungainly, metal clad, flightless bird with wings too large for you. Secondly, have you seen how big a full-sized shield is? They're big, they're heavy, and while I wouldnt want to catch the leading edge of one across my jaw, I don't see how a combatant could possibly put enough power behind one shield strike, then reorient and prepare for a strike with the other, before any reasonably skilled opponent would catch them with a quick thrust.
I know some people here arent big on bringing undue realism into the game, and thats fair, but come on - lets not jump the shark here. It's an interesting idea that's just untenable.
You are right, its about having fun. I did not say anything about 2 large shields. The picture in my head is 2 light round shields. Each are probably 2' in diameter. I see the guy blocking and thrusting (ocasionally spinning if necessary), no reason to believe that you can not use shields like that to do effective (not destructive) damage.
There are plenty of examples in movies of sheilds being used as weapons. (300, Gladiator, Troy, 13th warrior.. to name a few). I am not saying that a movie is the final source of reference but it does give a visual to what I am seeing. In each of these examples one shield is used, and it is usually a large shield with a sword or spear in the other hand. I do not feel that it is to far away from realisim that given 2 light (smaller) shields could be used in combat.
Your only problem with this is going to be that by RAW shieldbashes can only be an offhand weapon.Not true.
Nothing can only be an offhand weapon. That is plain silly. Are you saying that a man with no weapons at all grabs a shield off a fallen solder and wants to bash some orc, and he can *only* do it as an offhand weapon? He can't just slip it on his primary arm and bash away?
Your actually suggesting (or claiming that the RAW is suggesting) that normal people can do something with their off-hand but find it [b]impossible[/i] to do that same thing with their primary hand?
Impossible?
Poppycock.
Let's call it what it is: when the authors wrote "You can bash an opponent with a heavy/light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon" they were assuming you had a weapon in your primary hand. Since you're actually trying to kill your enemies, it stands to reason that you have a weapon. If you also have a shield, it stands to reason that it's in your off-hand.
That's all they were thinking.
Don't let their careless and needless phrase at the end of that sentence fool you into some silly notion that what you can do with your off-hand is impossible to do with your primary hand.
The only reason they added that phrase was to make it clear that when you fight with a weapon and a shield, your shield can be used as an off-hand weapon and would therefore follow all the usual off-hand weapon and two-weapon-fighting rules.
In other words, that phrase is not prohibitive of primary attacks, it is merely inclusive of off-hand attacks.
I wouldn't think this could get much clearer.
Like I said, I disagree with the rule, but specific rules overwrite general rules. If a certain effect typically says the effect is Con based but for one creature it says this effect is STR based, we go with the specific rule for that entry. As a houserule I would agree with you and let a shield be a primary weapon. Also shields are extremely effective weapons. I just disagree that using 2 of them at the same time would be effective. One of the primary purposes for using a shield is to knock down an opponent's shield or guard to get a clean strike with your sword or spear.
I don't dispute that A shield can be an effective tool for more than just blocking incoming blows - those movies give good examples of the sort of damage one can do to an opponent with a well timed bash.
I guess where we diverge is in vizualizing how your proposed warrior would function, both in the real world and under the rules, with two shields. Putting aside the way it might work in the real world, using them as weapons in the game would cause a few problems. One, if you bash, you're losing the shield bonus to AC of the shield. If you're not going to benefit from the shields defensive properties, why wield it when it is a less efficient weapon than, say, a long sword? Second, while wielding an offhand shield for a bash in considered a martial weapon, wielding one in your primary hand would undoubtedly be an exotic weapon proficiency. So, you've just spent a feat to wield a weapon that does less damage, on average, than a dagger.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea to me, any way I look at it.
Turning your back on the opponent is only an issue if they are better than you or maybe equal to you.
The actual speed achieved by highly trained martial artists, be they Asian or European and armed or unarmed, means turning your back lasts for a fraction of a second. And many include effective maneuvers that involve doing that very thing.
Back turned does not mean helpless to attack either. If it does then that person is obviously poorly trained.
A pointed out Muay Thai regularly makes use of maneuvers that involve turning your back on your opponent. So does many of the meanuvers in Capoeira and Savate. There are also several japanese and korean sword schools that make use of full body rotation strikes.
If the time it take to execute these maneuvers means to you that the person should be subject to an AOO then so too should many combat feats such as Power Attack (which would entail chambering the strike and bracing), Cleave and Great Cleave (since they are extensions of Power Attack), Whirlwind Attack. They involve either turning your back on a still standing opponent (Cleave, Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack. Or they involve the same delay in time (Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave).
-Weylin
As I stated previously, spinning techniques are slow and have to be set up to be used effectively. They are not staple martial techniques. I can throw a jab, cross, hook, cross(or uppercut) combo in the same time I can throw a spinning backfist. Don't get me started on spinning kicks. If you want to see someone use spinning techniques effectively, watch Cung Lee fight. He is probably the best person I've ever seen at using these technique, and he doesn't try to pull them off without some other sort of setup. Missing with a left straight punch and using the momentum to throw a right spinning backfist or roundhouse kick. You will also notice that he uses them a lot less than other techniques.. that's because he intends to win. Doing that throughout a fight would just let your opponent know what you're getting ready to do.
I think you might have a skewed version of what is going on in Power Attack as well, as noone I know chambers a punch outside of practice. Chambering a punch is a drill to teach you to pull your opponent into a punch, grab their arm and pull it down toward your waist with your left arm as your right fist heads towards their face. Power attack is simply swinging harder at the expense of some accuracy. Cleave is using your momentum to attack a second opponent, and whirlwind.. I don't know what the heck whirlwind is, but since they need 2 stats and 5 feats I'm going to say they can pull it off without an AoO
If someone wanted to use a shield as a weapon they may do so but must suffer the -4 penalty for using it as an improvised weapon (and using two hands to do so also). By strapping the shield to your forearm you are now wearing the shield and can use it as an off-hand blundgeoning weapon reducing the penalty to -2.
Shields are not designed for fighting with so a shield will never be as effective as a weapon (hense the -2), but when they are strapped to your arm they now become a part of your body making them less cumbersome as an improvised weapon (-4)
So, let me get this straight.
Your point is that I, a right-handed fighter, can pick up the shield, strap it onto my right arm, leave my left hand empty (no weapon, no shield), and now when I try to hit somebody with my right-handed shield, I have to take a -4 penalty.
But, if I take that shield off my right arm and put it on my left arm, now I can somehow magically hit somebody with only a -2 penalty, even though the shield is on my off-hand (the hand/arm I am less coordinated with).
That's your point?
Again, I say Poppycock!
The only reason the book says you can bash someone with a shield as an offhand weapon was so that players would know it was possible to do this using the TWF fighting rules, not because it imparts any mystical crunchy silliness to use shields better with your off-hand than you can use them with your main hand.
I don't dispute that A shield can be an effective tool for more than just blocking incoming blows - those movies give good examples of the sort of damage one can do to an opponent with a well timed bash.
I guess where we diverge is in vizualizing how your proposed warrior would function, both in the real world and under the rules, with two shields. Putting aside the way it might work in the real world, using them as weapons in the game would cause a few problems. One, if you bash, you're losing the shield bonus to AC of the shield. If you're not going to benefit from the shields defensive properties, why wield it when it is a less efficient weapon than, say, a long sword? Second, while wielding an offhand shield for a bash in considered a martial weapon, wielding one in your primary hand would undoubtedly be an exotic weapon proficiency. So, you've just spent a feat to wield a weapon that does less damage, on average, than a dagger.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea to me, any way I look at it.
And from a game balance standpoint it is not at all. It opens the door to people dual wielding spiked heavy shields of bashing of speed +5, and pulling off 9 attacks with no TWF penalties always bull rushing at 2d6 +5 with +9 shield bonuses to AC with the new shield feats and people wanting to say since they come from different sources they stack up to +18 AC.
Have watched Cung Le fight before. He is impressive in competition be it kickboxing or MMA matches.
I would not hold him up as an example though to compare with weapon styles. Or even for not turning your back for a micro-second. During capoeira matches your back is regularly turned to your opponent at several points. The rotation is lightning fast and usually follows a move to make your opponent take that a step back to set for the kick. Executing these maneuvers is not an issue for a mestre capoeirista.
-Weylin
In Capoeira at least what I've seen they're also not trying to hurt eachother. It's more of a dance than anything. It's also not the greatest fighting style. The reason they fight like that is it is a slave style so they had to be able to defend themselves with their hands chained down to the ground. It's not going to compare to a military style martial art.
This post as strayed so far away from my original intent....
For those of you who are against 2 shields for "realistic" reasons I have no further arguments to address my case. I have stated everything I can imagine too, to get my visual of what is going on across. Someone mentioned Cung Lee and his spin attacks coming after another attack... please tell me how that would be any different than doing a spin with a weapon? Whatever that weapon may be. I cant argue the RL factor anymore, I see it, if you dont then I dont know how to explain it any better.
For those who argue against it with RAW, I think that has been proven that it is valid as well.
Simply by RAW I could take improved unarmed fighting, put a heavy shield in my off hand and just "assume" for the visual that there are 2 light shields. This would be legal and actually better than 2 light shields because the heavy shield has +2 AC.
I will explain the visual I see one last time. A skilled fighter with all the proper feats runs into combat with a light shield in each hand. This shield is roughly 2' in diameter so (by someone elses estemation being that the arm has to be in the center) he has about 4" - 6" of shield in front of his fist and behind his elbow.
He starts his attack rotation with a "shield slam" from his left hand.
This attack hits his opponent square in the chest.
He does not loose his Shield bonus to AC because of Imp. bash.
His next attack is a cross with the right hand.
This attack is deflected high while his opponent ducks.
With the left hand he drops his shield low onto his opponents foot.
This also keeps the shield between him and the ducking opponent.
As he was doing this he was pulling his right hand out to the right.
He swings from right to left with the shield horizontal to the ground.
(as it was with the cross)
This attack connects with the rising opponents head, dazing him.
(not a daze effect, just for descriptive purposes)
This sort of swing has started his body in motion.
At this point he can continue the "spin" to slam his opponent in the chest with his left hand or...
drop his right shield down into a defensive position and start the whole thing over again, each hand switching roles from before.
This is how I visualize a combatant fighting with 2 shields. And as I typing it I like it more and more. It seems very fun and interesting.
|
Dual shield build impossible because you can only make off-hand attacks with a shield. Someone, in one of my games, who would insist in using a shield in the main hand I would tell him that it is treated as an improvised weapon (so the improvised weap .feats catch off guard, razorsharp, etc. would work on the main hand, and the shield feats on the off-hand).
Just as an aside there's a bit in Deadliest Warrior Spartan vs Ninja where they examine the effectiveness of the shield as a weapon. It's worth google videoing or youtube-ing if you're doubting it.
I imagine any large two shield style would have to be very flowing and aggressive in order to be effective (similar to axe styles in some respects).
With smaller shields it would probably look more like kickboxing with it's guards and elbow strikes.
|
|
Quijenoth, it seems that your whole argument is that a shield is not and cannot be a weapon. By RAW, on page 152 it specifically states that a shield is a weapon if used as a weapon. Even goes into saying it is a one handed martial weapon and can be enchanted as a weapon.
I have already argued how using 2 shields makes sense in a realistic picture. Trying to argue by RAW that it is not a weapon is wrong. (A standard teaching of Karate and Kempo is that blocks are strikes, for example)
Then talking about grabbing something in your hand. I understand that it says you "strap" the shield to your arm but that is not how it works. You slide your arm through a loop and grasp a handle. Thus you can drop the shield whenever you want as a free action. Hell you can even throw the shield off your arm as a ranged attack (of course this would incur many penalties but it is very possible).
Your fantasising completely here.
Firstly the RAW does not say it is a weapon - the page you quote is the same I included in my previous post and it states you can use a shield AS a weapon. it doesnt state it IS a weapon! I don't know how more obvious you want to make it but the definition here is the words "AS" and "IS"!!! I dont go up to an animal and say "this AS a dog!" I say "this IS a dog!" both have completely different meanings!
I dunno why you bring martial arts into an argument about sword and shields, neither have any relevance.
The rules specifically state you DON a shield by strapping it to your arm and that removing a shield, by RAW again, requires a move action. Perhaps you are not reading from the same book as the rest of us but there are specific rules for dropping a shield (on page 187 and on the table on page 183) yet you seem to say they do not exist.
You cannot throw a shield A) because it has no range increment and B) because its too large!. Perhaps in your Captain America, Superhero world its possible but in D&D its not realistic and not allowable in the rules without magic.
-------------------------------------------------
@ Weylin - Yeah i wish the equipment section was a bit more historically correct and I respect your decision to run a historically themed game. If the rules where a bit more historically clear perhaps we would see less arguments resulting from Greek vs Roman vs Middle Eastern vs Renaissance European arguments which are generally completely wrong.
Having said that though, My research of the shield in history has generally been that the first incantations of proper shields from the Hoplon indicates that the shield was originally never carried by a fighter but rather an ally who would put himself inbetween the fighter and his foe. Hoplons where Large round shields weighing an average 15.5 lbs and where too cumbersome to be held and where strapped to the arm to prevent strain on the wielder.
-------------------------------------------------
@ DM_Blake - Bold is my responce
So, let me get this straight.
Your point is that I, a right-handed fighter, can pick up the shield, strap it onto my right arm, leave my left hand empty (no weapon, no shield), and now when I try to hit somebody with my right-handed shield, I have to take a -4 penalty. No You will only be at -2 since the shield is considered an off-hand attack as if it was a bludgeoning weapon.
But, if I take that shield off my right arm and put it on my left arm, now I can somehow magically hit somebody with only a -2 penalty, even though the shield is on my off-hand (the hand/arm I am less coordinated with). No it is still -2, doesnt matter what hand you strap it too the shield becomes a part of your body when strapped to you so you can fight with this cumbersome weapon more effectively than with a normal improvised weapon. Handedness has no effect on gameplay.
That's your point?
Again, I say Poppycock!
The only reason the book says you can bash someone with a shield as an offhand weapon was so that players would know it was possible to do this using the TWF fighting rules, not because it imparts any mystical crunchy silliness to use shields better with your off-hand than you can use them with your main hand.
If you use a shield to bash with its at -2 because the rules state its considered an off-hand weapon under shield bash attacks. I could see a GM ignoring the first line of the shield bash rule like you are and allow the proverbial "Primary Handed Shield" to be used as a bash with no penalty but that causes conflict with other rules (see below).
If you use a sword and a shield you use the normal two weapon fighting rules as the entries state that a light shield is treated as a light weapon (-4/-8) and a heavy shield is treated as a one handed weapon (-10/-10)
Again let me clarify the rules - They state you can BASH with a shield, it does not say you can ATTACK with a shield. A shield bash is an attack action just like a trip, sunder or disarm so you can either shield bash once as a standard action or you can shield bash as part of a full attack action (incurring the penalties associated with your off-hand attack). A 20th level fighter can NEVER get 4 attacks with a shield since its always an off-hand attack.
Lastly I just want to say that this discussion has become very derailed as people try to argue historical principles to an obviously rules required question from the OP. He asked about a build for a two shield fighter yet the rules clearly prevent such an effective build without some serious leniency from the GM or bending/breaking of the rules.
|
|
Simply by RAW I could take improved unarmed fighting, put a heavy shield in my off hand and just "assume" for the visual that there are 2 light shields. This would be legal and actually better than 2 light shields because the heavy shield has +2 AC.
Umm how is this legal or even visually accurate? saying 1 heavy shield looks like 2 light shields?
A heavy shield gives +2 bonus to AC correct but you CANNOT fight with that hand since you are gripping a 10-15 lbs shield in one hand!!!! Thats almost twice as heavy as a 5ft long GREATSWORD. unarmed strikes or no, you wont be using that offhand and would need monk levels and furry of blows to pull off the fighting style your describing.
Shields don't do much damage for many reasons. First, they aren't sharp enough to cut, without being specially modified (and sharp edges are brittle, which is the last quality you want for something you're going to absorb impacts with) and specially practiced with to do slashing damage, in which case you're using a huge heavy awkward weapon that will only hit with a small portion of edge whose very shape diverts energy away from the point of collision. The shape of a shield is to DISPERSE energy from point of impact, the shape of a sword or axe or club is to FOCUS energy at the point of impact. Secondly, yes, if you take a full-strength shot in the throat from a very strong, adrenaline fueled experienced warrior from his shield, it could kill you. So could his bare hands, feather pen, or bath sponge. That doesn't make it a real weapon more than an improvised weapon. A glass bottle to the skull can be lethal, but not as readily or easily lethal as a tomahawk, mace, or sword. It's an improvised weapon that isn't designed to do damage. Third, the range is TERRIBLE. The center of a light shield is the middle of the forearm; a shield centered on the first is a buckler (because anything larger will break your wrist when it gets hit). A 24" shield means a 12" radius. That means that at best, you've got 4" beyond your fist to work with. A dagger has a reach of 6" in most cases.
I'll start by saying that the "shield bonus" to AC from two shields would not stack, RAW. And I'm not going to worry about it.
Let me emphasise this some more "You can bash with a shield like it was a weapon but that doesnt make it a weapon". "You can hit someone with a chair but it doesnt make a chair a weapon!"
And before someone chimes in and says a chair is an improvised weapon ITS NOT! its used AS IF it was an improvised weapon.
Improvised Weapons: Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Um, your "as if" doesn't really make sense, RAW. It just says anytime uses an improvised weapon, not anytime someone uses something "as" an improvised weapon. I'll give you 1 point of internets for at least acknowledging in that post that even with the off-hand RAW oddness, you would still be able to use a shield as an improvised weapon, just at a -4 penalty. Interestingly, since the rules tell you to compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list (where shields are, conveniently, listed), there's a pretty good baseline for what using a shield under the improvised weapon rules would do. It has the exact same size and damage potential as...a shield. Even better, it already has a critical range of 20/x2, so no downside there.
You cannot throw a shield A) because it has no range increment and B) because its too large!. Perhaps in your Captain America, Superhero world its possible but in D&D its not realistic and not allowable in the rules without magic.
Oh, I guess I have to take back that 1 internets I just awarded you. You can throw a shield because A) it defaults to the improvised range increment of 10 feet and B) because you can lift it. So, no magic required.
So basically, your position is that if you use a shield, it must be in your mythical off-hand, and you have a better attack roll than if you use it in your primary hand, even if your other hand is empty. It makes no sense. It passes RAW, but fails common sense, which was DM_Blake's point.
Even sillier are some of the consequences of treating primary-hand shields as improvised weapons.
Catch Off-Guard (Combat)
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
So...penalty completely gone with the "magic" of a feat. So you've now got an improvised weapon that is actually a shield but doesn't count as a shield because it's in your primary hand...so you can't do a shield slam, presumably, because it's an "improvised weapon" and you can't do a shield bash with "improvised weapons" so you can't do a shield slam. Oh well. At least you get them flat-footed if they're not holding a weapon, because apparently they don't expect the Captain America shield-to-the-face either.
Improvised Weapon Mastery (Combat)
You can turn nearly any object into a deadly weapon, from a razor-sharp chair leg to a sack of flour.
Prerequisites: Catch Off-Guard or Throw Anything, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised weapon. Increase the amount of damage dealt by the improvised weapon by one step (for example, 1d4 becomes 1d6) to a maximum of 1d8 (2d6 if the improvised weapon is two-handed). The improvised weapon has a critical threat range of 19–20, with a critical multiplier of ×2.
Hey, that's cool. Now we've got a better crit range and it does more damage. For a medium-sized character, a heavy spiked shield now does 1d8 and threatens on a 19-20. Not too shabby.
Again let me clarify the rules - They state you can BASH with a shield, it does not say you can ATTACK with a shield. A shield bash is an attack action just like a trip, sunder or disarm so you can either shield bash once as a standard action or you can shield bash as part of a full attack action (incurring the penalties associated with your off-hand attack). A 20th level fighter can NEVER get 4 attacks with a shield since its always an off-hand attack.
And this is where I just can't agree. As you say, there is no "handedness" in the system, and any character can make all their base attacks with either hand, whether it's with the dagger they normally use in their left hand or the sword they keep in their right hand. Making additional attacks with a two-handed weapon or using two weapons with the two-weapon fighting rules are the only times "off-hand" rules come into play at all. The two-handed weapons tie up your off-hand, and the two weapon rules give you an extra attack with your off-hand.
So I'm supposed to accept that someone with two shields applies completely different rules to each one, depending on which one he uses as "primary" and which he uses as "secondary" and, presumably, he could swap which shield is which at any time. The "primary" one would be affected by improvised weapon rules and the "secondary" one by shield bash rules.
OR
We can just rule that a shield is a shield is a shield, except when it's also a weapon. Sure, you give your players the possibility of making multiple shield slams in one round and racking up free bull rushes with them, but that will probably be rare. The circumstances in which multiple bull rushes in a single round would be useful, feasible, or even preferable are pretty much limited to conditions where the shield-bearer is surrounded by foes.
The biggest downside to that is that Shield Master is a better option with two shields than with a shield and a more typical weapon. I handle that with a house-rule where it reduces TWF penalties by one step; that is, heavy shields are treated as light (-2 main hand/-2 off hand) and light shields have no TWF penalties (-0/-0). This gives, numerically, the same reduction in penalties (except for the oddball 2x heavy shield users, they lose out, and the light shield users actually get an extra penalty reduction to their main weapon, which helps keep the light shield from becoming completely irrelevant) but spreads it across both types of weapons, thereby removing the major disincentive to using a real weapon/shield instead of two shields. The 2x shield guys still get the free enhancement bonuses, but I don't have to think about why anyone would pass up the opportunity for an extra +4 beyond the single-shield bonus. I just have these visions of hordes of TWF rangers running around with two shields and it weirds me out.
But you don't have to use the rule interpretation that off-hand weapons don't actually exist, even as shields. You can stick with the much more nonsensical improvised weapons rules if you want. And you certainly don't have to use the house rule I created that nerfs wielding two heavy shields with Shield Master, but improves light shields and any weapon/shield combo. Just don't tell me it's impossible to wield two shields, because clearly, even the most ridiculously literal interpretation of RAW allows them.
So really, why do you guys hate the idea of two shields so darn much? Yeah, it's silly, but all this harping on RAW or, for many others, how you actually manage the attacks without getting stabbed in the back, just seems pointless. Spinning/dodging/bobbing/weaving/whatever are all handled as abstractions for every weapon. If you're playing with facing rules, fine, but those aren't inherent to the system. By default, you face everywhere, and it's only when you even have opponents on opposite sides of you that it matters in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, it has comparable levels of ridiculousness to accurately firing a bow at someone 6o feet away five times in six seconds. And with a tiny bit of tweaking to the Shield Mastery feat, it's not even an obviously superior option, so anyone doing it is doing it for flavor.
Shields are crappy weapons. Big round flat dull slow exhausting limited-reach vision-impairing weapons.This is why nobody ever deliberately went into battle with just a shield. Probably millions of men have deliberately gone to battle with spears, glaives, axes, greatswords, and many other 2H weapons, as well as occasionally with just a 1h weapon and nothing in their other hand.
But nobody has ever deliberately chosen to wield a solitary shield with no weapon, using that shield as his only and primary weapon.
Quijenoth ruined it a little bit, but the moment I saw this, I thought "What about Steve Rogers?"
If shields were routinely so deadly, why did the people who wrote fighting manuals like Talhoffer or Liechtenaur never go into that? The only part of a Fechtbuch I've seen that deals with fighting with a shield as a dedicated weapon was with using a large spiked shield as a dueling weapon.
If the people who educated warriors in the age of sword and shield didn't think that using two shields was viable, there was probably a good reason.
You are making shields out to be considerably deadlier than they ever were for the sake of your ridiculous argument. Just test your concept RAW and see how it goes, instead of rewriting half the damn combat system to fit your silly idea.
If shields were routinely so deadly, why did the people who wrote fighting manuals like Talhoffer or Liechtenaur never go into that? The only part of a Fechtbuch I've seen that deals with fighting with a shield as a dedicated weapon was with using a large spiked shield as a dueling weapon.
If the people who educated warriors in the age of sword and shield didn't think that using two shields was viable, there was probably a good reason.
You are making shields out to be considerably deadlier than they ever were for the sake of your ridiculous argument. Just test your concept RAW and see how it goes, instead of rewriting half the damn combat system to fit your silly idea.
If you're referring to me, I'm not rewriting half the combat system. I'm interpreting one rule in a way that seems less silly than assuming that shields can only be used in the off hand (and I'm not the only one doing that; there is a valid argument to be made), and I'm adjusting a feat to provide more benefits for those who actually use real weapons along with a shield instead of just two shields.
RAW, with Shield Master, your attack bonus with your off-hand shield will be always be better than with primary weapon, except in the (potential case, due to differing interpretation of the description of shield bash) case of wielding two shields. Either way, with sword/shield or shield/shield, that seems extremely bizarre, and I don't think it makes sense. So I rewrote one feat, just splitting the total reduction of penalty across both hands instead of having it all in one. That dramatically reduces the RAW benefit of Shield Master with two heavy shields if you interpret shields as being able to be used in primary hands, and it still makes weapons match your off-hand shield in attack roll if you don't.
I just think following the implication that using a shield in a primary hand is impossible or treating it as an improvised weapon is more ridiculous. Frankly, I'm against there being better benefits to wielding two shields at once. If you look carefully at the adjustment to the feat, you will do more damage with a longsword and shield than with two shields (improved critical range and improved damage die). Your attack roll with the sword is also no longer worse than the roll with the shield. The adjustment to the feat also makes it worth carrying a light shield instead of a heavy shield in terms of your attack roll. So...not only am I not encouraging players to wield two shields, but I'm actually offering a benefit to using light shields as well. All without destroying the viability of the feat.
I actually started thinking about this because one of my players wants to go this double-shield route and when I thought about all the rules, I realized they are somewhat contradictory and make no sense. So rather than worry about it, I tidied the contradiction and removed the, I believe, unintended benefit of penalty-less TWF using two shields. And at the same time, made Shield Master a slightly more appealing feat for someone who has sunk all his gold into enhancing his real weapon.
So...yeah. Go sword-and-board, all the way. Down with ridiculous 2x shielders. Just don't tell me it's impossible to go 2x shields, because RAW it isn't.
Aside from the buckler Liechtenaur was not concerned with shield combat. Neither was Talhoffer or Kal or Ringneck.If shields were routinely so deadly, why did the people who wrote fighting manuals like Talhoffer or Liechtenaur never go into that? The only part of a Fechtbuch I've seen that deals with fighting with a shield as a dedicated weapon was with using a large spiked shield as a dueling weapon.
If the people who educated warriors in the age of sword and shield didn't think that using two shields was viable, there was probably a good reason.
You are making shields out to be considerably deadlier than they ever were for the sake of your ridiculous argument. Just test your concept RAW and see how it goes, instead of rewriting half the damn combat system to fit your silly idea.
So, if the people that the knightly fighting class went to weren't concerned with it, doesn't that indicate that shield fighting wasn't a major threat on the battlefield? After all, that's where all the theory gets tested. With all the evolution of swords, polearms, and armor during all this time, if shields were such effective weapons, why did they diminish so easily to the point of being discarded? Because the people who actually used them had better alternatives.
Yet the spiked chain, double sword, orc double axe, mercurial swords, klar, bladed scarves, sawtoth sabres, starknife, spiked armor (that deals d4) and such are not only not seen as silly and are accepted and embraced as valid weapons to use. That is the humor of all this to me really.
-Weylin
Spiked Chain: Manriki-Gusari with morning-star type heads. There are a number of flexible weapons in Eastern fighting styles. Also, Longxu hook. Real weapon.
Klar: A pata (Indian gauntlet-sword) with a buckler built onto it. Real weapon.
Mercurial Swords: I agree they're stupid. They're a shout-out to the awful Book of the New Sun, in which the protagonist uses a two-handed executioners sword with mercury in the hilt.
Bladed Scarves: Umiri, an Indian weapon consisting of sharp steel ribbons that can be worn as a belt or scarf until unbound. Also, chain-whips. Real weapon.
Sawtooth Sabres: Assuming you mean a curved sword with serrations? Sort of like the one the redhead used in Willow? More for looks than function like a Flammard but workable, just no better or worse than a regular weapon.
Starknife: Chinese weapons, usually used paired, called "Wind and Fire Wheels" as part of the martial art Baguazhang. Real weapon.
Spiked Armor: Gladiators would occasionally wear armor modified with spikes for looks, which I agree probably wasn't used as a primary weapon. I guess the idea is the the forearms or shoulders are spiked like dog collars and hitting would be like a shoulder block or forearm bash.
Dual shield build impossible because you can only make off-hand attacks with a shield. Someone, in one of my games, who would insist in using a shield in the main hand I would tell him that it is treated as an improvised weapon (so the improvised weap .feats catch off guard, razorsharp, etc. would work on the main hand, and the shield feats on the off-hand).
Again I say Poppycock!
Though, since I've explained my reasoning twice in this thread alone, I leave it to you to find my explanation on your own, if you so care.
|
|
I'll start by saying that the "shield bonus" to AC from two shields would not stack, RAW. And I'm not going to worry about it.
That, strangely, would have worked better in 3.0, where a shield gave an armor bonus that stacked with the armor bonus of worn armor (and other items, like the dastana, which also provided armor bonuses that stacked with certain other forms of armor).
Now, you'd need a specific feat to allow a person to benefit from the shield bonuses of two (or more, in the case of an aspis, athach or thri-kreen or something) shields, so that the specific rule (shield user can benefit from the shield bonus of two or more shields) would overwrite the general rule (bonuses of the same sort don't stack).
Ooh, now I want to see an aspis or thri-kreen quad-wielding four tortoise blades or klar...