|
IMHO, dual-weilding shields sounds like a fun character concept. Switching weapons in combat sounds like it wouls be really difficult to pull off without AOOs.
To all the critics who base their disapproval on real-world combat styles--sure it is a sub-optimal build, more flavor than crunch, totally un-realistic. But, that is the character the player wants to play. Dang...let a player play.
To the RAW critics, I buy that a bit more, but I have seen some harsh interpretations of rules. I really do not think that the designers really meant that a shield could only be used as an off-hand weapon. Sure, I don't think I would allow some of the shield feats to be used with both, but one OK, even if it is used as a primary weapon. I would not allow the shield bonuses to stack, but otherwise I think it would be an OK build.
Of course, it really doesn't matter what we would or would not allow, since we are not the OPs home DM, what we think really isn't at issue. He asked for help with a build, and all he has gotten is arguments over why it should or shouldn't be allowed, and as I count only one specifically about how to make it work.
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 don't see the distinction.
If it's used as a weapon, then it is a weapon.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it's a duck.
The rules list shields on the weapons chart (and not in the "This is only a non-weapon used as a weapon" section, either). The RAW says it can be enchanted with weapon enchantments. Oddly, shoes and gems and robes and waterskins and scrolls and lots of other stuff cannot be enchanted with weapon enchantments. In fact, the only things that can be enchanted with weapon enchantmens are weapons, meaning, everything on the weapons list. This includes shields because shields are weapons.
All the two weapon fighting feats work with shields, and they don't require the shield to be in your right hand, left hand, primary hand, or off-hand, any more than they require your axe or your dagger or your sword or whatever to be an any specific hand. The TWF rules are flexible enough that you could wield two of anything you can hold, and you determine your penalties according to the size (weight) of the weapon in your off-hand - regardless of whether that's your shield, your dagger, your axe, or your grand piano.
So every rule in the book that I can find that relates to striking with shields says they are weapons, they are used like (as) weapons, they get the same penalties as weapons get.
I see no way it matters that they said you can bash with it "using it as an off-hand weapon" - it means exactly the same thing as you can bash with it "because it is a weapon in your off-hand". But it would have even been better if they would have just said "because it is a weapon like any other weapon.
Which is (painfully obviously) what they meant to say - the authors didn't realize that people would nit-pick at just a couple words out this whole book and use that to find the silliest, most improbably definition, then defend it with their dying breath because the gospel said so.
If they would have said it that way, this whole stupid argument about not being able to swing a shield with your right hand would never have happened.
Man, if people nit-picked the Bible this thoroughly, Christianity would have collapsed before the end of the first century A.D. (no, I'm not turning this into a religious debate - my point is that any book, any book in the world has at least a few flaws in it, but there is no need to latch onto those flaws and treat them like unimpeachable Truth, with the capital-T).
We're all smart people. We can use our brains. Does anyone here think it makes any sense at all to actually believe that it's harder to strap a shield onto your right arm and hit someone with it than it is to strap it onto your left arm? Really?
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
Actually, I see those as silly. I have yet to use them as a player, and neither has anyone in my gaming group (we haven't even talked about it, now that I think about it - I think everyone just came to the table with the same recognition that these things are silly). I haven't created any bad guys using any of those weapons, either, nor has any DM I've played with in 3.5.
One exception: One player I game with made a spiked-chain trip-monkey fighter once, and played him for about two months. He admitted that he did it to piss off the DM. I think the DM almost ate his own DMG when this player used his spike chain to disarm the BBEG's wand if Wall of Fire and turned a tough BBEG into a trivial fight.
|
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.
Amen to that.
What confuses people is that they put light and heavy shield in the weapons table in the equipment section. People home in on that and want to treat shields "as any other weapon". What also confuses people are the various 3.5 shield feats kicking around (PHB II and complete warrior come to mind).
Yet you are correct: in Pathfinder RPG you can only make offhand shield bash attacks with a shield. Accept that rule and move on, and you'll maybe come up with a decent sword and board build.
Yet you are correct: in Pathfinder RPG you can only make offhand shield bash attacks with a shield. Accept that rule and move on, and you'll maybe come up with a decent sword and board build.
Improvised weapons. If a character can pick it up and can do damage attacking with it (and I don't think that's in dispute), then regardless of any specific text for shield bashes made as off hand attacks, it can be used as an improvised weapon. All it takes is one extra feat and the character can do it without any extra penalty on the attack. And, accordingly, you can wield another shield in your off hand and use it to make shield bash attacks.
Whether the player wants to burn the feats to do so is a different question, but stop pretending it's not a bizarre outlier case that is possible and that the rules don't seem to anticipate.
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.
Amen to that.
What confuses people is that they put light and heavy shield in the weapons table in the equipment section. People home in on that and want to treat shields "as any other weapon". What also confuses people are the various 3.5 shield feats kicking around (PHB II and complete warrior come to mind).
Yet you are correct: in Pathfinder RPG you can only make offhand shield bash attacks with a shield. Accept that rule and move on, and you'll maybe come up with a decent sword and board build.
Yes, please, accept the fact that a right-handed man can strike enemies with a shield strapped to his left hand, but if he tries to put that same shield on his right hand, the mystical forces of the universe conspire to prevent him from striking his enemies with it.
What confuses people is that they (the authors) added a phrase that says you can use shields as an off-hand weapon. People home in on that and want to believe that it is therefore impossible to use shields as a primary weapon.
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Somehow, that method of explaining it escaped me. Nice post.
|
What confuses people is that they (the authors) added a phrase that says you can use shields as an off-hand weapon. People home in on that and want to believe that it is therefore impossible to use shields as a primary weapon.
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
they added the phrase for a reason... Because A shield is too cumbersome to use as a primary weapon.
A two handed weapon requires 2 hands because of its size and weight.A heavy steel shield weights 15 lbs a Greataxe weights 12 lbs.
The rules have allowed the use of a heavy shield as a onehanded weapon because A) it is strapped to your arm and B) the weight is better distributed across your body. The recoil from a shield is so horendus that you cannot get primary attack effectiveness from it so the rules indicate it as an offhand attack. Weapons do not require your entire body to get the full force of the blow most one-handed weapons simply use your arm and shoulder. A shield requires your full body, hand, arm shoulder, back , waist and feet to strike with it.
I'm not saying its impossible, but under the current rules and tech level it is VERY difficult without magic. Modern construction and materials reduce the cumbersome qualities of shields, plastic being a good example in modern riot shields.
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.
I am a few posts behind here so I am replying as I go. First from your quote donning or dropping a shield can also be done as a free action if you have a +1 BAB.
And even though you do not recognize the truth we have already shown that a shield can be a weapon. A) And as per page 141 a weapon, even a weapon without a range increment can be thrown. B) the argument that it is to large is ridiculous. There are plenty of large things that get thrown all the time. (im thinking of the caber toss here... throwing a telephone poll is pretty impressive, and it was a weapon if memory serves.)
|
|
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.
Perhaps you should read the introduction to weapons first...
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat).
The use of a weapon (designation light, one handed, and two handed is not the same as its size as an object) it references you to find a reasonable match which is very ambiguous...
Now onto throwing - you can throw a weapon if the GM designates the weapon as something that can be thrown - not all improvised weapons can be thrown. People sometimes like the idea of throwing a greatsword because its done in the movies but that isnt using it as a thrown weapon. thats using the throw anything feat and treating whatever your throwing as an improvised weapon assuming you have the strength to lift such an object over your head.
You show me one person who can throw a 5 ft object weighting 8+ lbs, 50 ft with any degree of acurracy to hit a human sized target and I will retract this statement (and no throwing it like a javelin or shotput is not hitting a small target even if they can hurl it many meters).
Assuming the shield entries where not in the weapons table...
lets take a tree branch as a weapon of at least 2 inches diameter.
Its 1 ft long so the closest reference is a light mace - can be thrown like a dagger
Its 2 ft long so the closest reference is a club - can be thrown
Its 3 ft long so the closest reference is a longsword - can be thrown like a spear (2 hands)
Its 4 ft long so the closest reference is a bastardsword - cannot be thrown
Its 5 ft long so the closest reference is a greatsword... cannot be thrown
Now lets look at a light wooden shield.
A light shield is approximately 2-3 ft diameter putting it in the same category of weapons as a club and longsword (which is one-handed). We have already lost the designation of it being a light weapon. since it is a broad circle its surface area is much greater than a longsword or club so its weight must be considered. its heavier than both the club and longsword but not really heavy enough to be considered a two handed weapon so we will keep it one handed and say the damage is 1d8.
Now this is how much damage I would rule someone hitting a person over the head with a shield (not strapped to his arm) would do but this would be an improvised weapon attack and be at -4. It is far too large to be thrown "effectively" and "accurately".
The heavy shield is 15 lbs and is as much as 5 ft in length putting it into the two handed weapon category, its weight and size would possibly increase its size designation to a large weapon also since your trying to swing something thats as big as you are and far more bulky than a slender greatsword. It is still and improvised attack swinging it down into someones head like you would a large chair suffering -4 and requiring 2 hands. It cannot be thrown.
|
|
And even though you do not recognize the truth we have already shown that a shield can be a weapon. A) And as per page 141 a weapon, even a weapon without a range increment can be thrown. B) the argument that it is to large is ridiculous. There are plenty of large things that get thrown all the time. (im thinking of the caber toss here... throwing a telephone poll is pretty impressive, and it was a weapon if memory serves.)
Yes it does state you can throw any weapon but you
A) take a -4 penalty to the attack roll as if it was improvised.B) must spend a standard action or a full round action to do so depending on its size.
C) the GM would have final say if the item being thrown is viable as a weapon attack.
A telephone pole can be "tossed" but it cannot be used as a weapon to hit someone up to 50 ft away!
What confuses people is that they (the authors) added a phrase that says you can use shields as an off-hand weapon. People home in on that and want to believe that it is therefore impossible to use shields as a primary weapon.
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
they added the phrase for a reason... Because A shield is too cumbersome to use as a primary weapon.
A two handed weapon requires 2 hands because of its size and weight.
A heavy steel shield weights 15 lbs a Greataxe weights 12 lbs.
The rules have allowed the use of a heavy shield as a onehanded weapon because A) it is strapped to your arm and B) the weight is better distributed across your body. The recoil from a shield is so horendus that you cannot get primary attack effectiveness from it so the rules indicate it as an offhand attack. Weapons do not require your entire body to get the full force of the blow most one-handed weapons simply use your arm and shoulder. A shield requires your full body, hand, arm shoulder, back , waist and feet to strike with it.I'm not saying its impossible, but under the current rules and tech level it is VERY difficult without magic. Modern construction and materials reduce the cumbersome qualities of shields, plastic being a good example in modern riot shields.
Qui I can not disagree more with what you are trying to say. I think Blake and Rico both proved the RAW argument. It seems to me that you are still trying to force a RAW issue because you dont like the idea of using 2 shields.
What you say about recoil and such can be applied to any weapon being used in your primary hand. If its so hard to make an attack with a primary shield weapon then it would be just as hard to do this with a sword, axe or mace.
All the talk about the weight of the shield does not hold much water to me. Anyone who had any concern for realism or RAW would make their shield fighter with some strength. And by that I am saying 16+. Here we are talking about people who can lift hundreds of pounds, a few extra is not going to make much difference. (And this statement is coming from someone who frequently lifts weights and worksout in martial arts, so I have a base of knowledge.)
@Blake and Rico. I respect that each of you do not like the idea of using two shields but I thank you for clarifying the RAW... your explainations make clear sense and I do not see how anyone can continue to find an argument against it.
What confuses people is that they (the authors) added a phrase that says you can use shields as an off-hand weapon. People home in on that and want to believe that it is therefore impossible to use shields as a primary weapon.
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
they added the phrase for a reason... Because A shield is too cumbersome to use as a primary weapon.
A two handed weapon requires 2 hands because of its size and weight.
And most importantly, where that weight is located in proximity to your hands. For simple terms, we call that leverage.
A heavy steel shield weights 15 lbs a Greataxe weights 12 lbs.
Irrelevant.
I can bash someone with a 15-pound dumbbell (small weights you hold ino ne hand for weight lifting and toning) very easily, but if you put that dumbell at the end of a 4' long stick, I could barely swing it, slowly and badly, and my enemy could dodge that easily.
It's all about the leverage.
A 15-pound shield strapped to your arm instad of at the end of an axe-handle is not that hard to bash with (edge or face).
The range sucks (about the same as a dagger) and the speed sucks (it is still heavy and has inertial mass, so it would be slower to move than a dagger) and the visibility sucks (that big old shield cuts off your Line-of-Sight of half of your fielf of vision, far more than a dagger does), but it is no harder to swing than an axe.
I know, I've tried them both. In fact, the shield on my arm is easier to swing than an axe, simply because of the leverage.
The rules have allowed the use of a heavy shield as a onehanded weapon because A) it is strapped to your arm and B) the weight is better distributed across your body.
Totally agreed.
Now, where in there does it say you can only do it if the shield is strapped to one of your arms, while strapping to the other (not both) makes it impossible to do?
The recoil from a shield is so horendus that you cannot get primary attack effectiveness from it so the rules indicate it as an offhand attack.
Recoil?
I don't see recoil mentioned in any rules. Every bashing weapon has recoil (even slashing weapons, though it's very minimal).
I think this is a non-issue, really.
Weapons do not require your entire body to get the full force of the blow most one-handed weapons simply use your arm and shoulder. A shield requires your full body, hand, arm shoulder, back , waist and feet to strike with it.
Not true. That's just one way to do it.
Incidentally, that's also a great way to use all heavy weapons (greatswords, flails, large maces, battleaxes, etc.) - put your body into the swing to it goes faster, hits faster, hits harder, does more damage, and is harder to avoid.
I'm not saying its impossible, but under the current rules and tech level it is VERY difficult without magic. Modern construction and materials reduce the cumbersome qualities of shields, plastic being a good example in modern riot shields.
All true, except the expectation that it would be "VERY difficult".
I don't see it as any more difficult than swinging a battleaxe.
Of course, if you work in all the factors (battleaxe has 4' more length than the shield, dagger has much faster speed, all weapons have greater visibility of what's going on around you, almost every weapon known to man would do more damage and be more capable of killing or disabling your enemy, etc.) shields become very lousy choices as weapons.
|
|
Lets see, Two shield Human Fighter
1st Level: Imp. Shield bash, Caught off guard, Two weapon fighting. If you use two light shields you'll deal 1d4 damage (assuming spiked shields) have two attacks at a -2 penalty and keep your +1 AC bonus from the shield.
2nd: Throw anything, this will enable you to captain america your shields a must have for any proper shield fighter. I recomend getting at least one of them enchanted with the returning property for extra Cap goodness. It does take a move action to remove a shield so you'll never throw more than one in a turn, and the next round you'll have to waste a move action next round to don it.
3rd: quick draw, this is gonna take some discussing with the DM but I as a DM would allow this feat to apply to donning shields since it's a move action for weapons to, no reason it can't apply to shields, by the RAW it's not allowed, but I think any reasonable DM should allow this, that way when you do Captain America your shield you can put it back on same round.
4th: Weapon Training (close) this one is also requiring talking with your DM, as close weapons don't include improvised weapons technically this will only apply to your off hand shield, but I think this is also a case where a reasonable DM should allow it to apply to both shields. Double Slice, gotta get that off hand damage back up.
5th: Shield Focus, Keep that AC up Baby (you could also switch this with second or third level as needed, but for me turning into cap ASAP is a priority if you're gonna shield fight.
6th: Imp. Two Weapon fighting, gotta keep that off hand relevant (that can be taken dirtily)
7th: Shield Slam
8th: Improvised weapon mastery, Make that non-slamming main hand shield really worthwhile baby!
9th: Greater Shield Focus, Weapon training (thrown) another talk with your DM scenario, but no reason shields shouldn't count when thrown (only when thrown) especially when you've been training with them all this time
10th: Two weapon Rend
11th: Shield master, duh
12th: Greater TWF
At this point you now have all the feats you need to be an effective TWF dual shield weilder. Me personally I'd start taking ranged feats for more captain america awesomeness, then I'd take the rest of the vital strike tree, and finish it off with some critical feats. This will give you an effective dual shield fighter.
Lets see, Two shield Human Fighter
1st Level: Imp. Shield bash, Caught off guard, Two weapon fighting. If you use two light shields you'll deal 1d4 damage (assuming spiked shields) have two attacks at a -2 penalty and keep your +1 AC bonus from the shield.
2nd: Throw anything, this will enable you to captain america your shields a must have for any proper shield fighter. I recomend getting at least one of them enchanted with the returning property for extra Cap goodness. It does take a move action to remove a shield so you'll never throw more than one in a turn, and the next round you'll have to waste a move action next round to don it.
3rd: quick draw, this is gonna take some discussing with the DM but I as a DM would allow this feat to apply to donning shields since it's a move action for weapons to, no reason it can't apply to shields, by the RAW it's not allowed, but I think any reasonable DM should allow this, that way when you do Captain America your shield you can put it back on same round.
4th: Weapon Training (close) this one is also requiring talking with your DM, as close weapons don't include improvised weapons technically this will only apply to your off hand shield, but I think this is also a case where a reasonable DM should allow it to apply to both shields. Double Slice, gotta get that off hand damage back up.
5th: Shield Focus, Keep that AC up Baby (you could also switch this with second or third level as needed, but for me turning into cap ASAP is a priority if you're gonna shield fight.
6th: Imp. Two Weapon fighting, gotta keep that off hand relevant (that can be taken dirtily)
7th: Shield Slam
8th: Improvised weapon mastery, Make that non-slamming main hand shield really worthwhile baby!
9th: Greater Shield Focus, Weapon training (thrown) another talk with your DM scenario, but no reason shields shouldn't count when thrown (only when thrown) especially when you've been training with them all this time
10th: Two weapon Rend
11th: Shield master, duh
12th:...
Honestly if someone took catch off guard and throw anything I would probably let them do 2 shields because it's like buying exotic weapon proficiencies. The fact is that character is good at using stuff as weapons that they shouldn't be. They can also kill with random objects they come across that would be far less deadly than a spiked shield.
I would however make them wait to take two weapon rend until they had the prereqs like +11 BAB :)
|
|
What confuses people is that they (the authors) added a phrase that says you can use shields as an off-hand weapon. People home in on that and want to believe that it is therefore impossible to use shields as a primary weapon.
Look, I can say "An orc can pick his nose with his off-hand." This does not mean that he cannot pick his nose with his other hand too. Just because I mention that it's possible for him to use his off-hand to do something does not mean I am precluding other methods of doing the same thing with his primary hand.
It's that simple.
Everyone needs to stop fixating on the off-hand reference, because it is allowing off-hand attacks without disallowing primary attacks.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
they added the phrase for a reason... Because A shield is too cumbersome to use as a primary weapon.
A two handed weapon requires 2 hands because of its size and weight.
A heavy steel shield weights 15 lbs a Greataxe weights 12 lbs.
The rules have allowed the use of a heavy shield as a onehanded weapon because A) it is strapped to your arm and B) the weight is better distributed across your body. The recoil from a shield is so horendus that you cannot get primary attack effectiveness from it so the rules indicate it as an offhand attack. Weapons do not require your entire body to get the full force of the blow most one-handed weapons simply use your arm and shoulder. A shield requires your full body, hand, arm shoulder, back , waist and feet to strike with it.
Bingo.
RAW say shields = off-hand only. If you are equipped with two shields, the first shield bash you make (regardless of using your right or left arm) is a off-hand attack with your main hand. Unless you have Improved or Greater TWF, you can no longer make any other shield bashes this round, as you are now out of off-hand attacks. If you're bearing two shields, your "main hand" attacks are now also wasted: you can't even use armor spikes for "main hand" attacks if you have already made off-hand attacks, as per armor spikes RAW.
The rules are there to avoid too much cheese. Sword and board is now a great option. But it's a SWORD and board option. Stop trying to "Le Royale McCheese" this by trying to validate this ridiculous board and board scenario!
Cheers.
|
|
Lets see, Two shield Human Fighter [snip]
Lastknightleft has it right. I fully approve this build. And I believe even Quickdraw would work with shields as per RAW, because although shields are weapons with very strict limitations, they are weapons indeed, and thus Quickdraw works on them.
NOTE: although lastknight's build is legal, it is not optimal, due to to the feats wasted on making the main hand improvised weapon worth using... for optimal build, again, SWORD AND BOARD, as weapon focus/specialization feats can be applied directly on the sword side of the equation.
Now, if there was a feat that reduced that dang -4 to the main hand when using a heavy shield in the off-hand! :)
|
|
I don't want to stop you but ... how could you even wear the shields. I think you would need two hands to wear one, how would you do with the second ?
But do if it pleases you really.
I thought about this too. It wouldn't work in real life unless you have the second shield on the ground or on a table or hung on a wall with the straps facing you, THEN slide your hand in the straps. But in-game I'm not sure it's disallowed to don a shield with one hand as per RAW (it only says you need a move action).
|
|
I can bash someone with a 15-pound dumbbell (small weights you hold ino ne hand for weight lifting and toning) very easily, but if you put that dumbell at the end of a 4' long stick, I could barely swing it, slowly and badly, and my enemy could dodge that easily.
So what your saying is you personally think the proficiency system doesnt apply to you? You consider yourself proficient in a 15-pound dumbell just because you can swing it easily? I guess I must be proficient in hitting people with a keyboard because I can touchtype!
A 15-pound shield strapped to your arm instead of at the end of an axe-handle is not that hard to bash with (edge or face).
Absolutely, but if you remove the strap from the shield you will have a really hard time hitting anyone with it without straining/breaking your wrist.
Just out of curiosity how long can you hold your arm outstretched while holding a 15 lbs dumbell before you start to feel uncomfortable?, not to the point you have to drop it but for how long till it starts to make your muscles ache. Now imagine doing the same for 8 hours a day! the straps on a shield distribute its weight across your arm and into your shoulder for a reason and in doing so restricts the use of a shield as a weapon.Totally agreed.
Now, where in there does it say you can only do it if the shield is strapped to one of your arms, while strapping to the other (not both) makes it impossible to do?
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
Now it doesnt say its impossible but by RAW you can only make one off-hand attack. if you have a +2 shield in one hand and a +1 shield in the other you can bash with either one but whichever you choose its an off-hand attack meaning you cant use the other in the same round. (why you think this rule should not apply if your wielding two shields but that it does apply when using a sword and shield is beyond me)
Recoil?
I don't see recoil mentioned in any rules. Every bashing weapon has recoil (even slashing weapons, though it's very minimal).
I think this is a non-issue, really.
The Recoil is in reference to losing your AC from the shield - you lose the benefits of the shield for a full 6 seconds. with a sword you lose nothing.
All true, except the expectation that it would be "VERY difficult".
I don't see it as any more difficult than swinging a battleaxe.
Again I guess the proficiency system means nothing to you. swinging a club and swinging a battleaxe are the same? then why does a rogue swing a battleaxe with -4 but he swings a club at +0?
|
|
I would however make them wait to take two weapon rend until they had the prereqs like +11 BAB :)
Argh this is why BAB and level requirements should be the first thing listed in the pre-reqs I swear I doublechecked that thing three times and missed that danged BAB pre-req (I was only using the chart, not the description) Anywho fine Mr. Hopper, I'd take point blank shot at 10th, two weapon rend at 13th, precise shot at 14th, vital strike tree for 15th-17th, critical focus for 18th, Staggering critical at 19th and stunning critical at 20th. Happy? :P
|
|
Interesting Build
Thats all seems legal to me and you have clearly stated that the shield used in the main hand is infact an improvised weapon...
Some comments though;
The fighter is not proficient with improvised weapons (and I dont think he can ever be by RAW) which means at 1st level he is -2 to hit with his off-hand shield and -6 with his main hand shield.
As you pointed out the RAW doesnt let certain things apply to shields and you would have to house rule with your GM. I'm not opposed to this either but I would have difficulties allowing someone to throw normal shields.
Throwing a shield would be at a -8 penalty (-4 for improvised weapon, and -4 for throwing a weapon that doesnt have a range category), even with the throw anything feat this penalty still applies (since the shield isnt a thrown improvised weapon) so hitting someone at maximum range is going to be near on impossible.
I personally would allow mithril shields to count as light improvised throwing weapons because they have a reduced weight (3 lbs for light). This would allow them to be thrown like a light weapon giving them a range increment reducing the penalty to -4. I would also allow someone to throw a buckler (thinking like a large discus).
Now, if there was a feat that reduced that dang -4 to the main hand when using a heavy shield in the off-hand! :)
And that's why I rewrote the Shield Master feat. It's just weird to have the longsword in the primary hand at a -4 but the shield in the off-hand at full BAB. -2/-2 seems far more equitable.
Interesting BuildThats all seems legal to me and you have clearly stated that the shield used in the main hand is infact an improvised weapon...
Some comments though;
The fighter is not proficient with improvised weapons (and I dont think he can ever be by RAW) which means at 1st level he is -2 to hit with his off-hand shield and -6 with his main hand shield.
As you pointed out the RAW doesnt let certain things apply to shields and you would have to house rule with your GM. I'm not opposed to this either but I would have difficulties allowing someone to throw normal shields.
Throwing a shield would be at a -8 penalty (-4 for improvised weapon, and -4 for throwing a weapon that doesnt have a range category), even with the throw anything feat this penalty still applies (since the shield isnt a thrown improvised weapon) so hitting someone at maximum range is going to be near on impossible.
I personally would allow mithril shields to count as light improvised throwing weapons because they have a reduced weight (3 lbs for light). This would allow them to be thrown like a light weapon giving them a range increment reducing the penalty to -4. I would also allow someone to throw a buckler (thinking like a large discus).
He's using catch off guard to be proficient with improvised weapons.
|
|
I have a longsword and heavy shield fighter that's heading for shield mastery, and with greater weapon focus / greater specialization longsword. Weapon focus and greater weapon focus longsword will effectively bring me from -4 main / 0 off-hand to -2 main / 0 off-hand, which is acceptable... :)
QUESTION: can the bashing shield property stack with shield mastery? (i.e. shield master +2 atk/dmg PLUS bashing +1 atk/dmg = +3 atk/dmg?)
If so, that would bring me to -2 main / + 3 off-hand :) (and the off-hand attack gives me a free bull rush attempt yay!!!)
NOTE: by the way, the free bull rush attempt you get with Shield Slam is *better* than a regular bull rush. Regular bull rushes do not result in opponents being prone, even when you back them up against a wall. Shield Slam does (i.e. enemy hits wall before full movement backwards is achieved = prone). NICE! :)
NICER: If you take Greater Bull Rush, the opponent's movement backwards provoke AoOs.
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.Perhaps you should read the introduction to weapons first...
Light: A light weapon is used in one hand. It is easier to use in one's off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and can be used while grappling (see Combat).The use of a weapon (designation light, one handed, and two handed is not the same as its size as an object) it references you to find a reasonable match which is very ambiguous...
Now onto throwing - you can throw a weapon if the GM designates the weapon as something that can be thrown - not all improvised weapons can be thrown. People sometimes like the idea of throwing a greatsword because its done in the movies but that isnt using it as a thrown weapon. thats using the throw anything feat and treating whatever your throwing as an improvised weapon assuming you have the strength to lift such an object over your head.
You show me one person who can throw a 5 ft object weighting 8+ lbs, 50 ft with any degree of acurracy to hit a human sized target and I will retract this statement (and no throwing it like a javelin or shotput is not hitting a small target even if they can hurl it many meters).
Assuming the shield entries where not in the weapons table...
lets take a tree branch as a weapon of at least 2 inches diameter.
Its 1 ft long so the closest reference is a light mace - can be thrown like a dagger
Its 2 ft long so the closest reference is a club - can be thrown
Its 3 ft long so the closest reference is a longsword - can be thrown like a spear (2 hands)
Its 4 ft long so the closest reference is a bastardsword - cannot be thrown
Its 5 ft long so the closest reference is a greatsword... cannot be thrownNow lets look at a light wooden shield.
A light shield is approximately...
Apologies for uglying up the board with a really long quote.
Quijenoth, are you seriously trying to tell me that when using a light shield as improvised weapon you think it is closer in size and damage potential to a club than it is to a light shield? I really have no words for that. I can't even figure out why you quoted the light weapons rules, which are totally irrelevant. While you would like to conveniently ignore entries on the weapons table, I work with what's in front of me.For someone who seems to love insisting on what is or is not RAW, you're not very consistent at applying it. IIf you cannot use a shield as a primary weapon, you can use it as an improvised weapon. Every improvised weapon has a range of 10. These are RAW.
As I've said, I choose not to follow RAW in one major instance (the Shield Master feat) and I choose to interpret the shield bash description as additional text clarifying primarily that you can attack with shields (and it unfortunately assumes, but I do not feel is intended to restrict you to using it in your off hand), and secondarily that without feats, you lose your shield bonus to AC. If you don't agree that's how it's intended, fine. Improvised weapons rules still cover it. I feel that adjudicating it as an improvised weapon is really silly, though, when it creates bizarre contradictions that only exist for the sake of one interpretation. It doesn't seem unbalancing, since shields aren't usually the best weapons anyway, and in the odd case of Shield Master, I fixed that. I spent a fair amount of time looking at these rules because one of my players declared his intent to be a two-shield paladin. I haven't yet shown him my rewrite of the Shield Master feat, but I warned him that I would probably change it because I felt it wasn't quite right. I don't yet know if he will actually dump his longsword when the time comes, but I can feel confident that the incentives to do so aren't quite as ridiculous.
You'll note that I didn't change the enchancement bonus part of the Shield Master feat, which is another thing I just don't get. It would be nice to have official errata fo those who can't live without it, and to end the argument, but I'm content with my handling of it, for now.
I guess some of it is just philosophical. I don't like to restrict my players on flavor, but I don't like them to come up with flavor just to exploit something. If my player still wants double shields, that's cool. I once played a thie in a Wheel of Time game that literally had sacks of gold coins tied all over his body and piled up in a wheelbarrow (that I scrounged/fixed expressly for this purpose) when we happened upon a dead kingdom's treasure vault. I wheeled that gold up and down mountains, seriously hindering the party's movement. For some reason, the fact they were all minted for another kingdom convinced the rest of my party they were worthless, but I kept explaining that it was gold (I only talked about the trade goods rule on gold by weight with the GM) and knew that I had more wealth than the entire party should have for many levels. Since I'd been playing him as an underpriveleged urban youth out to get rich, it made sense. I had already taken the character to ridiculous extremes in the gathering and hoarding of money, and he started with his big goal to buy a horse so he could be a man who owned his own horse. The campaign ended on what was essentially a total party wipe (except for me and one other character) that was basically self-induced. Not the GM's fault at all. My character essentially became a king after the horrible botched campaign, and I'm always left to remember that even when it looks like a player ia trying to exploit the rules or selfishly destroy the balance of the campaign or just plain act ridiculous...sometimes they are just playing a character and having fun.
If you want to ban your players from wielding two shields for your games, whatever. The rules are not on your side though.
|
|
You aren't paying attentionInteresting BuildThats all seems legal to me and you have clearly stated that the shield used in the main hand is infact an improvised weapon...
Some comments though;
The fighter is not proficient with improvised weapons (and I dont think he can ever be by RAW) which means at 1st level he is -2 to hit with his off-hand shield and -6 with his main hand shield.
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 flatfooted against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
This means that he only suffers the negative penalties of Two weapon fighting, since if you look at the build he got this feat at level 1
did you look at the feats he was given, You can throw any weapon as an improvised weapon with a range increment of 10ft, and shield can be thrown as improvised weapons, in fact 3.5 had a feat to throw just shields, but pathfinder simplified it, because throwing a shield it becomes an improvised range weapon, at second level the build gave him Throw anything which statesAs you pointed out the RAW doesnt let certain things apply to shields and you would have to house rule with your GM. I'm not opposed to this either but I would have difficulties allowing someone to throw normal shields.
Throwing a shield would be at a -8 penalty (-4 for improvised weapon, and -4 for throwing a weapon that doesnt have a range category), even with the throw anything feat this penalty still applies (since the shield isnt a thrown improvised weapon) so hitting someone at maximum range is going to be near on impossible.
Throw Anything (Combat)
You are used to throwing things you have on hand.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus on attack rolls made with thrown splash weapons.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
I personally would allow mithril shields to count as light improvised throwing weapons because they have a reduced weight (3 lbs for light). This would allow them to be thrown like a light weapon giving them a range increment reducing the penalty to -4. I would also allow someone to throw a buckler (thinking like a large discus).
Doesn't matter, maybe if you want to houserule that mithral light shields aren't improvised weapons and therefor don't require the throw anything feat that's fine, but you can throw a light shield as an improvised weapon, they weigh 6 lbs, and we were dealing with a build for light sheilds. not heavy. Trust me I can throw a 6lb shield ten feet(especially if its disk shaped) that's as an improvised weapon with no attack bonus (I'm a BAB +0 when it comes to ranged weapons), I haven't trained to do it (i.e. taken the throw anything feat).
RAW say shields = off-hand only.
No it doesn't.
It says shields = off hand. There is no "only" in there. At all. Neither written nor implied. It only says that because the author wanted you to know you can use the off-hand weapon rules with TWF using a shield. The author is NOT limiting you or preventing you from using that same shield as a primary weapon if you are so inclined.
Consider this sentence: You can bash an opponent with a mace, using it as an off-hand weapon.
If you were to read that sentence in the rules, would you automatically conclude that there is no way possible to use a mace in your primary hand?
Note that it is the exact same wording. Exactly the same. All I did was replace shield with mace.
Why is (nearly) everyone so fixated on this off-hand only thing, when the RAW doesn't even say off-hand only?
|
|
correction stuff
Yeah so I see now, Catch off guard was the only feat I forgot to reference. however we do go onto a slight tangent with the idea that every improvised weapon can be thrown, but with the throw anything anything can (with a -4). I'm not going to argue that here because I can see how it reads both ways and it could fill up a thread of its own.
I will say that if I was ruling a light shield as an improvised weapon it would be a one-handed weapon you couldnt throw while a mithril light shield would be light enough to throw with one hand and treated as a light weapon for other purposes.
|
Why do some keep upping the size of the shield the OP wanted to use? It keeps getting upped to heavy shield instead of the light shield which only weighs 5 pounds.
It takes a lot of stuffing to build a straw man. Thus the constant exagerration of what the OP was talking about to heap ridicule upon his idea.
|
|
Why do some keep upping the size of the shield the OP wanted to use? It keeps getting upped to heavy shield instead of the light shield which only weighs 5 pounds.It takes a lot of stuffing to build a straw man. Thus the constant exagerration of what the OP was talking about to heap ridicule upon his idea.
I'm guilty of using the heavy shield in some examples but when referenced it allied equally to the light, its just easier to show that a shield is heavier than its weapon counterpart.
Even a light shield weights 5 lbs or 6 lbs if its made of steel. Thats still alot more than 90% of the light weapons. Its actually more than 50% of the one-handed weapons also (and equal to 90% of the rest) yet its still used as a light weapon to bash.
|
|
RAW say shields = off-hand only.No it doesn't.
It says shields = off hand. There is no "only" in there. At all. Neither written nor implied. It only says that because the author wanted you to know you can use the off-hand weapon rules with TWF using a shield. The author is NOT limiting you or preventing you from using that same shield as a primary weapon if you are so inclined.
Consider this sentence: You can bash an opponent with a mace, using it as an off-hand weapon.
If you were to read that sentence in the rules, would you automatically conclude that there is no way possible to use a mace in your primary hand?
Note that it is the exact same wording. Exactly the same. All I did was replace shield with mace.
Why is (nearly) everyone so fixated on this off-hand only thing, when the RAW doesn't even say off-hand only?
Because I have also considered the armor spikes wording. Go read it. Compare it to the shield wording. Then also do this: consider the fact that two shields look absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
Because I have also considered the armor spikes wording. Go read it. Compare it to the shield wording. Then also do this: consider the fact that two shields look absolutely ridiculous.RAW say shields = off-hand only.No it doesn't.
It says shields = off hand. There is no "only" in there. At all. Neither written nor implied. It only says that because the author wanted you to know you can use the off-hand weapon rules with TWF using a shield. The author is NOT limiting you or preventing you from using that same shield as a primary weapon if you are so inclined.
Consider this sentence: You can bash an opponent with a mace, using it as an off-hand weapon.
If you were to read that sentence in the rules, would you automatically conclude that there is no way possible to use a mace in your primary hand?
Note that it is the exact same wording. Exactly the same. All I did was replace shield with mace.
Why is (nearly) everyone so fixated on this off-hand only thing, when the RAW doesn't even say off-hand only?
I didnt consider looking at armor spikes as a comparison before but your 100% correct. Armor spikes solidifies the argument that a shield used as a weapon IS off-hand only and that their presence on the weapons table is for convenience only...
Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked armor” on Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right.
It gives rules for grapple, main hand and off hand because you can use all three types (but the circumstances change with each). So why didnt they give rules for main hand attacks for shields? because you cant use them in your main hand (unless as an improvised weapon and the penalties associated with that)!!!!
Because I have also considered the armor spikes wording. Go read it. Compare it to the shield wording. Then also do this: consider the fact that two shields look absolutely ridiculous.RAW say shields = off-hand only.No it doesn't.
It says shields = off hand. There is no "only" in there. At all. Neither written nor implied. It only says that because the author wanted you to know you can use the off-hand weapon rules with TWF using a shield. The author is NOT limiting you or preventing you from using that same shield as a primary weapon if you are so inclined.
Consider this sentence: You can bash an opponent with a mace, using it as an off-hand weapon.
If you were to read that sentence in the rules, would you automatically conclude that there is no way possible to use a mace in your primary hand?
Note that it is the exact same wording. Exactly the same. All I did was replace shield with mace.
Why is (nearly) everyone so fixated on this off-hand only thing, when the RAW doesn't even say off-hand only?
What, because the armor spikes rule is worded a little better means that it's OK to read make-believe words in the shield rule that aren't there?
And yes, I've already said dual-wielding two shields would be ridiculous. However, most of my posts have had nothing to do with two shields, including the one you quoted here.
What I am saying is a shield is a weapon. It can be used as a weapon in every way that any other weapon can. It has weapon stats. It can be enchanted as a weapon. And it can be used in the off-hand if you want to.
There is not RAW that says a shield can only hurt an enemy if you wield it in your off-hand, nor is there any RAW that says you have to take penalties of any kind for wielding it your primary hand. If yo do wield a shield in your primary hand, you do NOT take off-hand or improvised-weapon penalties.
Plain and simple.
And all the people here saying you should take -4 penalty are arguing the fact that you can do something with your left hand (strike with a shield) better than you can do that same thing with your right hand, even if you're right handed.
And those arguing that it is impossible to use a shield as a primary weapon are arguing the fact that you can do something with your left hand (strike with a shield) but that somehow if you try to do that same thing with your right hand all the mystical forces of the cosmos will conspire against you and make it impossible for you to do it.
Both arguments are preposterous.
So is dual-wielding shields, though, in this case, the RAW does seem to allow it. Me as a DM, I would send any player back to the drawing board for a new character concept if he came to the table with this one. But other DMs and other players may feel differently.
|
|
What, because the armor spikes rule is worded a little better means that it's OK to read make-believe words in the shield rule that aren't there?And yes, I've already said dual-wielding two shields would be ridiculous. However, most of my posts have had nothing to do with two shields, including the one you quoted here.
What I am saying is a shield is a weapon. It can be used as a weapon in every way that any other weapon can. It has weapon stats. It can be enchanted as a weapon. And it can be used in the off-hand if you want to.
There is not RAW that says a shield can only hurt an enemy if you wield it in your off-hand, nor is there any RAW that says you have to take penalties of any kind for wielding it your primary hand. If yo do wield a shield in your primary hand, you do NOT take off-hand or improvised-weapon penalties.
Plain and simple.
Ok ignoring the rest of this thread to keep it simple, you are saying that shields are a weapon... what then is the proficiency to use a shield as a weapon since it is not covered under the shield proficiency?
According to the Weapons table a shield is a martial melee weapon, yet a cleric, druid, and bard do not gain access to martial weapons, they do however have proficiency in shields. So do they suffer -4 nonweapon proficiency when attack with shields but not when using it for defence?
Does this mean they take a -4 non-proficiency penalty when shield bashing on top of the -2 for an offhand attack?
Would a class that granted martial weapon proficiency but no shield proficiency then allow someone to attack with a shield but suffer the ACP to attack rolls because they aren't proficient in a shield for defence?
Is the shield THAT complicated it is the only weapon that requires 2 proficiencies to use effectively?
You assume the shield is a weapon because it doesn't say it isn't.
Maybe you are assuming the shield proficiency also grants you proficiency in a shield as a weapon as a benefit because it doesn't say you can't.
Can I therefore assume that magic missile does 1d6 fire damage too? because it doesn't say it don't?
There have been some good arguments made and while I don't think it's a concept worth doing, I'd have to admit that there are grounds for allowing it.
At this point, I would allow a character in a game I was running to use a shield as a primary weapon, doing regular shield bash damage, as long as they took an exotic weapon proficiency in it, demonstrating their training in using a shield proficiently as a main weapon. Using paired shields, they would take normal TWF penalties to using both as weapons.
Ok ignoring the rest of this thread to keep it simple, you are saying that shields are a weapon... what then is the proficiency to use a shield as a weapon since it is not covered under the shield proficiency?
Martial Weapon Proficiency, since both the heavy and light shield descriptions specifically say so:
Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
According to the Weapons table a shield is a martial melee weapon, yet a cleric, druid, and bard do not gain access to martial weapons, they do however have proficiency in shields. So do they suffer -4 nonweapon proficiency when attack with shields but not when using it for defence?
Yes.
It's worth noting that his non-proficiency penalty would apply regardless of whether he's making an off-hand or a primary-hand attack with it.
Does this mean they take a -4 non-proficiency penalty when shield bashing on top of the -2 for an offhand attack?
Of course.
Would a class that granted martial weapon proficiency but no shield proficiency then allow someone to attack with a shield but suffer the ACP to attack rolls because they aren't proficient in a shield for defence?
This one is a bit murky.
Clearly, you must be proficient with a shield to use it in the fashion you wish to use it. That much is obvious.
If you use it for defense, getting AC from it, then the ordinary shield-proficiency is required. This represents knowing how to defend yourself with your shield effectively and efficiently. Without this knowledge, you wear yourself out and throw yourself off-balance and consequently suffer a penalty to your attack rolls.
If you use it for offense, you are now using it as a weapon. Your ability to defend yourself effectively and efficiently is irrelevent, so the shield proficiency should be irrelevent too. Martial Weapon proficiency is what counts here. If you have it, you don't take a non-proficiency penalty on your attacks. If you don't have it, you take non-profiency penalty on your attacks.
What gets murky is when you switch back and forth between defending and attacking. I am not sure how I would deal with that if someone tried it who lacked one of those profiencies, but I suppose I would just apply the appriate penalty at the appropriate time.
Is the shield THAT complicated it is the only weapon that requires 2 proficiencies to use effectively?
Nope, just one or the other, depending on how you're using it.
You assume the shield is a weapon because it doesn't say it isn't.
Nope. I assume it's a weapon because it says it is a weapon, and it says which weapon proficiency is needed wield it as a weapon.
Maybe you are assuming the shield proficiency also grants you proficiency in a shield as a weapon as a benefit because it doesn't say you can't.
Nope, see above.
Can I therefore assume that magic missile does 1d6 fire damage too? because it doesn't say it don't?
You're welcome to do so if you wish, but that might be a little silly.
|
|
DM_Blake, I'm starting to think that you like arguing for the sake of arguing... have you even read the heavy and light shield entries? I'm going to actually quote the core book here and you tell me which part of each paragraph confuses you.
P.152
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table 6–4 for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed 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.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table 6–4 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.