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 proficiencies, but I suppose I would just apply the appropriate penalty at the appropriate time.
As a small comment to this part, wouldn't the wielder lose the benefits of the shield as armor? Since they are no longer holding the device in such a way as to block incoming blows, but are instead 'projecting' the item out into an attack?
A complication to the combat round, I know, but something I feel would be helpful in its addressing.
Not wanting to muddy or derail the thread in any way, but what of other 'non' classical shield type implements? Here I am referring to the martial-arts 'weapon' called the "Tonfa". This would seem to be something that allows a wielder to have their shield cake and eat too, since it at one time in combat is functioning as a blunt 'short stick', while at other times it is functioning as a defensive 'blocking' shield type item?
Just another thought I had while thinking about the various permutations espoused within this thread and it's topic.
Cheers!
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.
Arguing for the sake of arguing?
Heavens no.
I'm arguing for the sake of banishing the nonsense in this thread, and tyring to replace it with actual sense.
I've read those paragraphs, and I've quoted them. Nothing in them confuses me one bit, probably because I am reading what is there and not adding words that aren't.
What's there? I'm glad you asked. What's there is permission to use the shield as an off-hand weapon.
What isn't there? I'm glad you asked that too. What isn't there is restriction on using the shield as a weapon.
Shields are martial bludgeoning weapons that can be used as weapons and enchanted as weapons. If you read those paragraphs you quoted, you'll see that too.
Nowhere does it say they can only be used as weapons in certain ways.
The bit that says you can use them as off-hand weapons is giving you permission to do something you might not have known you could do. In fact, without this sentence in the rulebook, it would be very easy to argue that the only way to attack with a shield is as a primary weapon.
Think about it. Here's a thought exercise. Pretend for a minute that the offending phrase ("using it as an off-hand weapon") did not exist anywhere in the book. Now, reread our imaginary paragraph. All it says is you can bash an opponent with a shield. Period. How would you do it?
Leaving out that phrase really makes these rules confusing, so they put the phrase in so you would know exactly how to do it.
One way to do it.
But that phrase does not take away all the other ways to bash someone with your shield. I say again, all that phrase does is give permission for one additional way to attack with the shield .
I can't make it any more simple for you.
|
Permission to use it as off-hand? that's ridiculous. You never need permission to use light or one-handed weapons as off-hand. You're clearly trying to make something up, and I don't know why, so I'll leave it at that. The text could not be clearer as far as I am concerned: you can use a shield to make shield bash attacks in the off-hand. It then tells you that the damage for such an attack is in the weapons table. Nowhere does it allow you to use a shield as a regular weapon. A shield is NOT a weapon. It is a shield.
|
responce post
i'm glad we see eye to eye on the proficiency issue (except the magic missile line ;P). I guess given that Im British the language of humor and sarcasm got a little blurry here /chuckle.
You certainly proved to me you can read a rule and apply it as written, however as PDK has said Although you are reading and quoting a section that is headlined "Shield Bash Attacks" you are still applying the rules as "Regular Attacks" which they clearly are not... The rules in two places use the word BASH, not just attack. If the entry under shields in the weapons section read you can attack with a shield I would likely concede to disagree with you based on rules interpretations but the fact shields use a special attack "called Shield Bash" is why I am continually arguing the point here (perhaps in the hopes of some official errata/ruling to be made but I doubt that)
What's there? I'm glad you asked. What's there is permission to use the shield as an off-hand weapon.What isn't there? I'm glad you asked that too. What isn't there is restriction on using the shield as a weapon.
Shields are martial bludgeoning weapons that can be used as weapons and enchanted as weapons. If you read those paragraphs you quoted, you'll see that too.
Nowhere does it say they can only be used as weapons in certain ways.
and thats because you have completely ignored a part of the sentence, again...
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. a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
So when you mage a shield bash attack the shield is considered a martial bludgeoning weapon, if you are trying to make a regular attack the shield is a shield (not a martial bludgeoning weapon)!
Leaving out that phrase really makes these rules confusing, so they put the phrase in so you would know exactly how to do it.
One way to do it.
Wrong. The only way to attack with a shield IS, as the entry for shield under weapons reads...
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
The rules specifically state you can use a shield for a shield bash (following the rules outlined there) or for defence. It does not say you can use it for offence (except the shield bash of cause).
I am with DM Blake on this one, he is being rather sane.
Permission to use it as off-hand? that's ridiculous. You never need permission to use light or one-handed weapons as off-hand. You're clearly trying to make something up, and I don't know why, so I'll leave it at that. The text could not be clearer as far as I am concerned: you can use a shield to make shield bash attacks in the off-hand. It then tells you that the damage for such an attack is in the weapons table. Nowhere does it allow you to use a shield as a regular weapon. A shield is NOT a weapon. It is a shield.
Then why is it listed as such earlier in the book? It is both a weapon and a shield...
And even so, here is nothing in the rules saying you can not bash with your primary hand. This comes into the common sense.
I know the problem here, the dual shield fighting style, as I admit, is way too powerful in comparison to normal two weapon fighting. So people are struggling to grasp and poke holes in it, which is fine, and very bios-ed rules lawyer-ly. I think the greater problem here is that two weapon fighting by it self is too week.
I know the problem here, the dual shield fighting style, as I admit, is way too powerful in comparison to normal two weapon fighting. So people are struggling to grasp and poke holes in it, which is fine, and very bios-ed rules lawyer-ly. I think the greater problem here is that two weapon fighting by it self is too week.
Hmmm, if that's true, which it might be, then all it takes is simply saying no.
There is no historical precedent (video games, comic books and anime don't count as history) for such a fighting style. There is no rational reason for anyone to attempt such a fighting style today or ever before. There is no justification for it.
The only reason the dual-shield fighter even seems appealing, other than for comic value, is because a flawed gaming system makes shields way too powerful when used as weapons, and makes TWF (neither overpowered nor underpowered in my opinion) awkward to apply at your best attack bonuses (soooo many feats when using two different weapons or extra penalties for using two of the same, unless they're puny weapons), and makes sword-n-shield fighting ineffective at damage dealing without turning the shield into an overpowered weapon.
Long before I would be comfortable turning my D&D game into a cartoon, I would rather just fix the system that gives us all these imbalanced mechanics - and I would start by toning the shield down as a weapon and toning it up as a defense.
That should satisfy sword-n-shield types as they will get enough defense to feel well-compensated for having the lowest, er, uh, DPS, out of the various combat styles - they'll certainly live longer than the other guys, and that's got to be worth a lot.
|
|
I'd like to make a fighter who can dual wield dire donkeys, one dire donkey per hand, as improvised weapons, while wearing a belt of Titan's strength +20. I mean, after all, if you're in a setting with elves and fireballs, why keep going on about this verisimilitude stuff? Quit trying to cramp my creativity here!
And, there's nothing that says "you're in trouble" like a dire donkey that's been trained to bite being hurled into your face with 40 foot range increment. Especially if it's a mithril-spiked flaming dire donkey +5.
An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
Would you n00bs please learn your rules before breaking in here with obviously broken builds that aren't viable by the rules. [/sarcasm]
That's the reason I posted the build I did, A since it soaks up so many feats it's balanced, I can build a much better Sword and Board fighter without as many feats required and higher damage dealing capacity. the shields minor damage and the fact that the player has to invest in so many feats makes the build balanced when compared to a standard or even sword and board fighter. I personally also find the 2 shield style rediculous, but not so rediculous as a ninja, a wizard, a dragon shaman, and a duskblade traveling together in the first place. This build is less optimal than most fighter builds I'd throw out, but would allow a player to get away with it once to get it out of their system.
|
|
And even so, here is nothing in the rules saying you can not bash with your primary hand. This comes into the common sense.
As I quoted above: Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
So according to the rules performing a Shield bash attack is an off-hand attack, not a primary hand attack.Common sense would indicate you can hit someone with a shield as a primary attack, yes, but doing so is using the shield as an improvised weapon (at -4) not as a shield applying the shield bash attack rule. I'm not saying two shield fighting is impossible all I'm saying is that to do so is far more difficult than using one the correct way.
As pointed out by a previous build it would take a lot of feats to make this sort of combat viable and in some aspects requires adjudication by the GM. I disagree with DM_Blake because under his rules fighting with two shields is just as easy as fighting with two weapons.
|
|
And even so, here is nothing in the rules saying you can not bash with your primary hand. This comes into the common sense.As I quoted above: Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
So according to the rules performing a Shield bash attack is an off-hand attack, not a primary hand attack.Common sense would indicate you can hit someone with a shield as a primary attack, yes, but doing so is using the shield as an improvised weapon (at -4) not as a shield applying the shield bash attack rule. I'm not saying two shield fighting is impossible all I'm saying is that to do so is far more difficult than using one the correct way.
As pointed out by a previous build it would take a lot of feats to make this sort of combat viable and in some aspects requires adjudication by the GM. I disagree with DM_Blake because under his rules fighting with two shields is just as easy as fighting with two weapons.
Not to mention that it makes it possible to wield the heavy steel shield in your primary hand and a light weapon like a short sword in the off hand thus avoiding the normal heavy off hand weapon penalties for the shield you're supposed to be taking.
|
|
Not to mention that it makes it possible to wield the heavy steel shield in your primary hand and a light weapon like a short sword in the off hand thus avoiding the normal heavy off hand weapon penalties for the shield you're supposed to be taking.
Now this is where the rules get a little foggy for me...
Since your not using the heavy steel shield as a shield bash attack it is no longer considered a one handed martial melee weapon. It is a 15 lbs hunk of metal that is almost as large as you. For me this is a two handed improvised weapon, you also cannot use it for AC.
If you strap it to your arm like a normal shield you have DONNED it and can apply its AC. Meaning you are wearing the shield and cannot now attack with it unless you shield bash. If you try to shield bash with it your primary hand becomes your off-hand and the shortsword is now your primary attack (i.e. we are back to square one and this is where DM_Blakes handedness argument comes in).
Doing this with a light shield however since it is lighter and smaller makes the light shield and improvised one handed melee weapon, you can use it in one hand and the shortsword in the off-hand but if you DON it you lose the ability to strike with it.
Some GMs might allow you to strike with the edge of a light shield while its attached to your arm but for me this is not a Bash attack and would negate all use of the shield as a shield. To me this is using the shield like a weapon and the strapping of the weapon to your arm simply grants you the same benefit as a locked gauntlet (e.g. you are more difficult to disarm (+10)) and I certainly wouldn't allow it with a heavy shield.
This may not be the correct interpretation but its how I would rule it based on RAW however the rules aren't clear on this fact and peoples interpretations may vary at this point.
I'd like to make a fighter who can dual wield dire donkeys, one dire donkey per hand, as improvised weapons, while wearing a belt of Titan's strength +20. I mean, after all, if you're in a setting with elves and fireballs, why keep going on about this verisimilitude stuff? Quit trying to cramp my creativity here!
And, there's nothing that says "you're in trouble" like a dire donkey that's been trained to bite being hurled into your face with 40 foot range increment. Especially if it's a mithril-spiked flaming dire donkey +5.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAH That's good man. Way to sum up this entire 5 page thread in a single post...
Personally if I was the DM I would allow it and treat it as TWF and have done. That said I think its monumentally silly and there is more chance of the enemy dying of laughter than by shield blows but if someone wanted to do it, good luck to them.
*edit* Perhaps that is the problem. Fighting this way gives the PC unlimited Horrid Laughter spell everytime it is used....
|
|
Not to mention that it makes it possible to wield the heavy steel shield in your primary hand and a light weapon like a short sword in the off hand thus avoiding the normal heavy off hand weapon penalties for the shield you're supposed to be taking.Now this is where the rules get a little foggy for me...
Since your not using the heavy steel shield as a shield bash attack it is no longer considered a one handed martial melee weapon. It is a 15 lbs hunk of metal that is almost as large as you. For me this is a two handed improvised weapon, you also cannot use it for AC.
If you strap it to your arm like a normal shield you have DONNED it and can apply its AC. Meaning you are wearing the shield and cannot now attack with it unless you shield bash. If you try to shield bash with it your primary hand becomes your off-hand and the shortsword is now your primary attack (i.e. we are back to square one and this is where DM_Blakes handedness argument comes in).Doing this with a light shield however since it is lighter and smaller makes the light shield and improvised one handed melee weapon, you can use it in one hand and the shortsword in the off-hand but if you DON it you lose the ability to strike with it.
Some GMs might allow you to strike with the edge of a light shield while its attached to your arm but for me this is not a Bash attack and would negate all use of the shield as a shield. To me this is using the shield like a weapon and the strapping of the weapon to your arm simply grants you the same benefit as a locked gauntlet (e.g. you are more difficult to disarm (+10)) and I certainly wouldn't allow it with a heavy shield.
This may not be the correct interpretation but its how I would rule it based on RAW however the rules aren't clear on this fact and peoples interpretations may vary at this point.
Oh don't get me wrong, I agree, it doesn't matter which arm holds the shield, it's an off hand attack, but he's saying it can be done as a primary attack, If that's the case you can use the shield as primary, weapon as secondary. Which is the real reason you're not supposed to be able too, a shield bash is an off hand attack only because otherwise you can get into wonky rules abuse scenarios.
|
|
A shield is NOT a weapon. When you read a report, be it an engineering report or a financial report, the text of the document(also known as "the main body" of the report) is the binding document.
Figures, tables, diagrams, appendices are all nice, but the BODY of the report, the "written" text portion of it is what contains the findings and summarizes the results and gives us a conclusion.
Using the TEXT / BODY of the PRD, here is what listed under the WEAPON section, in reference to shields:
"Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense."
THAT'S IT!
So before getting on these boards and flaming people left and right for upholding the RAW, I suggest you read the rules yourself. I am aiming this post at no one in particular. I am just concerned at the general trend of putting rules arguments out without refering to the rules themselves, as I suspect that part of the issue here is people looking at a table and jumping to conclusions. A table is a supporting document at best, especially in this case, as we have direct text/rule spelling out what you can do with a shield.
|
THAT'S IT!
So before getting on these boards and flaming people left and right for upholding the RAW, I suggest you read the rules yourself. I am aiming this post at no one in particular.
If you feel that you have been flamed left and right by someone who is supporting the idea of trying to find a decent mechanic for dual-wielding shields, feel free to flag them.
The closest to 'flaming' I've seen has come from the other side of the debate, however.
And even so, here is nothing in the rules saying you can not bash with your primary hand. This comes into the common sense.As I quoted above: Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
Step back and think, it does not say specifically you can NOT use it in your primary hand. It just says you can use it to bash with your off hand. Find me somewhere saying you can not use a shield to bash with in your primary hand; otherwise don't bother.
P.S.
Weapon Descriptions ....
Martial Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M) Critical Range Weight1 Type2 Special
Light Melee Weapons
Shield, light special 1d2 1d3 ×2 — special B
One-Handed Melee Weapons
Shield, heavy special 1d3 1d4 ×2 — special BShield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
Shields do seem to be listed as capable weapons, not requiring improvised weapon feats or the likes. Just that if you want to keep your AC and use it as a weapon at the same time, that takes a feat.
Personally if I was the DM I would allow it and treat it as TWF and have done. That said I think its monumentally silly and there is more chance of the enemy dying of laughter than by shield blows but if someone wanted to do it, good luck to them.
*edit* Perhaps that is the problem. Fighting this way gives the PC unlimited Horrid Laughter spell everytime it is used....
Even if you think it's funny there's a big problem with balance here. Using the TWF, two weapon rend, and shieldbash feats a character can get 8ish shieldbashes i.e. bullrushes per turn, can put all their weapon specializations into one weapon, and be more deadly and have more feat economy than someone using a better weapon. And I'm going to come out and say it, a sword is a better weapon than a shield.
On top of this they could argue that the shields are separate sources and so they should get AC from both, with shield master the shield weapon enhancement counts as a shield enhancement, so now we have w +5 bashing shields doing 2d6 +5 damage before weapon training/specialization and counting as a +5 shield for armor purposes, now add in shield defense feats and make that +7 AC, some people will argue for +14 because it's separate shields.
So even if it's a funny idea, it's broken, this is just off the top of my head I'm sure others can think of worse things to do with these shields.
As I quoted above: Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.Step back and think, it does not say specifically you can NOT use it in your primary hand. It just says you can use it to bash with your off hand. Find me somewhere saying you can not use a shield to bash with in your primary hand; otherwise don't bother.
When other items that fit the same niche say that they can be used as a main hand attack and then this particular item fails to say it, you are as guilty of "making things up" as anyone else. There isn't any common sense to be applied, regardless of what you or anyone else believes. My common sense isn’t your common sense and quite often someone’s common sense is complete stupidity to another, you see where I’m going with that?
When something like this grey area comes up, I typically am only interested in the RAW, not the RA(you or I)I. As the RAW is what is important in any large scale game dealing with many people (like a Con) with different interpretations, it is what there is left to make a ruling on. As written shield bashes can only be off hand attacks. It might have been bad editing, or something cut out for space, or anything really. But it is what it is now, the last time this cropped up we didn't get an answer from Paizo even though we asked for it. And like anything in the game, if you, in your game want to change it to be other than what is stated in the published rules, feel free. A discussion like this isn't about your rules, it is about an official published rule(or rules) and what it means as it is written in the book - This is no longer an Open Beta, these are published rules no longer open for discussion. If you want to discuss your homebrew variations this isn't the correct forum, that discussion is for over at the Community Content - Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum.
Now, I’m going to step back and think… You’re saying because the rules DON’T say you can’t make a main hand attack it is valid? Really? I think that is a rather ridiculous statement. It opens the way for a great many more loop holes and abuses of the game rules and creates more head aches than anything else I’d wager. As an aside, game rules, as a rule, typically tell you what you can do. Rules telling you what you can’t do are a minority. Also as a game sometimes the rules contradict what we think should be true, or what we think should happen. Lets look at the rules for arrows for example, they are always piercing or slashing weapons, ALWAYS, by RAW. Doesn’t matter if they are blunt tipped or have an unsharpened rock attached to the front of them, they are either treated as piercing damage from the bow, or piercing or slashing when used as an improvised weapon (as a dagger) even if it makes more “sense” to be a blunt damage type. Not only does that fly in the face of “common sense”, but there have been rules published in the past *specifically* for blunt arrows. But for the PFRPG Core rules, RAW states that arrows are type P or S regardless of “build.” Now feel free to disagree and rule otherwise in YOUR game, but the actual printed Campaign Rules state that is what happens.
Using your “common sense” they could be blunt right? Well they could be piercing and slashing at the same time too, or they could be slashing and blunt, or better yet they could be all three at the same time, all because it doesn’t say they can’t…
I don’t buy it and I’m going to say I put more time into thinking about it when I “stepped back” than you did when you made that statement. The rules say what can be done, sometimes they are amended by other rules (like feats typically do), sometimes errata (which we've yet to see). As things stand, we have asked for errata, we haven’t gotten it. We haven’t even got a “Yes this is how it is supposed to be” from Paizo and it has been something that was brought up awhile ago even though someone from Paizo had to come in and say "Be nice" if I remember correctly. So, they know about it, they are just keeping quiet. The only thing left at this time is to take the rules as written - RAW and use them. As the rules don’t say “you can make an attack with a shield bash as a main hand attack” but they do say “you can make a shield bash as an off hand attack” you are just arguing what you want the rules to be. That is your interpretation, not what is actually in print, it is that simple.
Shields do seem to be listed as capable weapons, not requiring improvised weapon feats or the likes. Just that if you want to keep your AC and use it as a weapon at the same time, that takes a feat.
Being listed on the table means nothing, it is well established that items on tables are ignored when contradictory rules text exists. This case isn’t even a matter of contradiction, when specific circumstances occur check table to see what properties the item has, that is thoroughness and ease of reference. Chances are the only reason the item is even listed is because it was referred to in the text and it didn’t warrant as “special section” all to itself in Paizo’s eyes.
The use of shields for the purpose of doing damage has very specific qualifiers:1) You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
2) Used this way, a light/heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
3) For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light/heavy shield as a light/one-handed weapon.
What that means:
1) In all of the PFRPG book, there are maybe 20 places the term “off-hand” comes up. The gist of it being off hand attacks take additional penalties and get half of the STR damage bonus. Exceptions being Monks when flurrying or using unarmed attacks or if the character has the double slice feat. The rest of the times it is associated with 2 weapon fighting which forces the main hand and off hand designation. As you are forced to say one item is main hand and the other is off hand AND shield bash is specifically called out as an off-hand attack, this keeps you from doing 2 weapon fighting with shields with out some other mechanic (like the Improvised weapon feat as was detailed earlier in the post).
2) Used this way (using it as an off-hand weapon.) the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. Not in and of itself, but when a specific action occurs the shield is treated as this type of weapon. This keeps non combat types (or lesser combat types) from accomplishing this action as easily as the combat types who have the proficiencies to do so. Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins and Rangers are the only classes capable of using the shield bash without penalties above and beyond the 2 weapon penalties and even then they are stuck with such attacks as being “off-hand” as that is the only type of attack the weapon is capable of (unlike the armor spike which has more options and is stated as being able to be used as a main hand attack) as per the rules typed out in the book.
3) If you are using the shield bash to make a main hand attack, you don’t take a penalty per the size/type of the weapon. Only if you are using it with 2 weapon fighting do penalties start to come into play, there is no “if” to this statement. It is a flat out statement that you are taking the penalties. This means the assumption/implication is you are 2 weapon fighting, if you are 2 weapon fighting, shield bashes are “off-hand” attacks as per the first qualifier.
Now you may not like, or you don't think that it is "right" but that is your prerogative, feel free to change it in your game. But when someone comes up and says I would like to make X build using Core rules (as that is the typical assumption, if they had access to splat books most of the builds wouldn't be that hard to create) and someone comes along and says "It should be this way" even though the literal written rule is such and such, that person really isn't helping. RAW, the build that was done gives the OP the character that they asked for, regardless of what anyone thinks the RAI should be. Until Paizo decides to tackle this the actual Rules As Written are specific and clear enough, and that is all we have to go on (unless your DM decides otherwise for his/her game). All that has really happened is we went from "It can't be done" to "It can be done like this" and now people are complaining about how much it takes in character resources to do it. The build has been posted, the OP's question has been answered, if you still take issue with the rules head over to the other (appropriate) forum and start posting there what you have done as all you are doing is arguing your preferences over the RAW now in this thread.
The rules don't say I can't... You're a funny guy.
Wow.
I tried to teach you (plural, not all-inclusive, you decide if I mean you or not because I'm not naming anyone here) how to interpret the RAW here.
I tried logic.
I tried counterpoint.
I tried reductio ad absurdum.
And yet, there's still an apparently sizeable group of people reading the same words I read and getting the exact opposite meaning from them.
What's stranger is that those who espouse this opposing meaning seem to be content with a universe where the mystical energy of the cosmos somehow conspires to make it absolutely impossible for a normal person to even attempt something with one hand that they can routinely do with their other hand.
Amazing.
Well heck, you may all be right in the end. After all, I'm quite certain that I can use a computer mouse with great facility, but only with my right hand; there certainly does seem to be a mysterious force that prevents me from any success when I try to use that same mouse with my left hand. So, maybe the mystical cosmos does consipre against switching handedness of tools or other implements after all.
I concede. You win. I now firmly believe that a man who takes his shield off of his left arm and puts it onto his right arm couldn't even squash a fly with it.
I now peel my bloody forehead off of this brick wall and shamble off to find some medical attention. Any doctors in the house?
|
|
Just like your mouse, with which you have evolved to use your index for left clicking and your bad finger for right clicking, warriors of olden times had adapted to fit their off-arms securely in first a big strap and second a tighter/smaller strap, which they gripped fiercely to keep the shield close to their chest. Unless you were from Sparta and had a perfectly round shield with straps right in the middle, your heavy shield probably had a shape to it (like diamond shape) and probably had the straps near the top of the shield, so as to use gravity to help straighten the shield in an upwards position during combat. You probably used your sword in the same hand everytime due to training/preference, so the straps of your shield had been customized to fit your other arm securely. After all, your shield was a big giant steel or wood target for others to hit repeatedly, and thus required tight fittings...
:)
|
|
Find me somewhere saying you can not use a shield to bash with in your primary hand; otherwise don't bother.
Gladly...
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
So you either shield bash (offensive option) or defend yourself; and reading shield bash its an off-hand attack as has been pointed out so many times now.
Shall we take another look at the weapons...
Lets look at the bastard sword. To use a bastard sword 1 handed you must have the exotic weapon proficiency, otherwise its a martial two handed weapon. This indicates its more difficult to use one handed.
Without the description and going only on the table people would be arguing why a bastard sword is exotic and not martial like the longsword and greatsword, the text clears up what the table does not show and the bastard sword is placed in the exotic one handed weapon category for convenience where it should actually appear in both the exotic one handed and martial two handed categories.
Ever since D&D has been going tables are used to list items for convenient reference, no table exists without some form of explanation on how to read it. the biggest culprit of tables providing misleading information is the feat table, the short descriptions can be ambiguous and the pre-requisites often miss out some.
|
|
I concede. You win. I now firmly believe that a man who takes his shield off of his left arm and puts it onto his right arm couldn't even squash a fly with it.
DM_Blake, while we may disagree with your interpretations of the RAW its still clear that we agree you should be able too use a shield in either hand. but you seem to think its just as easy and produces the same results which it clearly cannot.
If ambidexterity still existed in the game then maybe it would be but for everyone else using the incorrect hand for an item designed for the off-hand should have additional penalties.However arguing the rules doesnt help because in the rules its not possible, outside the rules do what you like but this thread is/was about building a character within the confines of those rules and to do the "impossible" required alot of feats and bending of rules.
The only other solution is to apply house-rules and/or optional rules (which I believe someone included one or two from a 3.5 splat book).
Here is a question for all those who think you can only bash with your off hand. What makes the weapon an off hand? Is it the bonus to hit? If so then sense shield mastery makes it so that the shield hand in TWF have a higher bonus than the non shield hand, and thus becomes the main hand and thus makes the feat null in void if you can only bash with your primary. Please correct me if I am wrong.
If they didn't want one to bash with their primary hand, then they would have stated something along the lines of "You can only bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon".
If they wanted to be sure you knew you could bash with your off hand I think they would have said something along "You may shield bash with both you primary and off hand." However if they assumed that you would normally want to shield bash with your off hand "You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon"
So
1. There is no restrictive language in the description of shield bash limiting it to only off hand attacks.
2. It does not make sense in any means that you can use something as a weapon in off hand and not the primary.
3. If it is intended that your off hand is mystically some how better than your primary hand, and that you can only shield bash with you off hand, then I will have to chock this up to another poorly written aspect that is in bad need of revision, and unless it is fixed in some errata, down the line, I look forward to Pathfinder v2.
So these are my points, address them directly please.
|
|
Wow.
I tried to teach you (plural, not all-inclusive, you decide if I mean you or not because I'm not naming anyone here) how to interpret the RAW here.
I tried logic.
I tried counterpoint.
I tried reductio ad absurdum.
And yet, there's still an apparently sizeable group of people reading the same words I read and getting the exact opposite meaning from them.
What's stranger is that those who espouse this opposing meaning seem to be content with a universe where the mystical energy of the cosmos somehow conspires to make it absolutely impossible for a normal person to even attempt something with one hand that they can routinely do with their other hand.
Amazing.
Well heck, you may all be right in the end. After all, I'm quite certain that I can use a computer mouse with great facility, but only with my right hand; there certainly does seem to be a mysterious force that prevents me from any success when I try to use that same mouse with my left hand. So, maybe the mystical cosmos does consipre against switching handedness of tools or other implements after all.
I concede. You win. I now firmly believe that a man who takes his shield off of his left arm and puts it onto his right arm couldn't even squash a fly with it.
I now peel my bloody forehead off of this brick wall and shamble off to find some medical attention. Any doctors in the house?
Its not that you can't bash with the primary hand, but when you do, it is treated as an off hand, meaning 1/2 strength mod damage. That's all, you can bash away with either hand, when you do though it is treated as your off hand. That's not the same as saying which hand has to be used, merely that it doesn't matter which hand you use, it's treated as an off hand when shield bashing. Even if you only shield bash, it's still off hand, even when only wielding a single shield and making one attack in a round with your main hand, it's an off hand attack.
|
|
See my responces in bold
1. There is no restrictive language in the description of shield bash limiting it to only off hand attacks.
I and many others have already answered this many times above: You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
2. It does not make sense in any means that you can use something as a weapon in off hand and not the primary.
Agreed using a weapon in either hand is fine, however using a shield as a weapon is an improvised weapon (-4) unless you are making a shield bash attack (see no.1).
3. If it is intended that your off hand is mystically some how better than your primary hand, and that you can only shield bash with you off hand, then I will have to chock this up to another poorly written aspect that is in bad need of revision, and unless it is fixed in some errata, down the line, I look forward to Pathfinder v2.
The only mystical part of yours and DM_blakes logic is that of the handedness rule, handedness means nothing in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder. There used to be rules for handedness (which could be overcome with ambidexterity) but it was dropped because it didnt make much sence.
I am a lefty, and while I cannot write at all with my right hand I can swing a sword in my left and right hand with equal skill. I may favor the left over time because my left is "stronger" but thats the only reason.
The interpretation of the off-hand rule is purely a two weapon fighting aspect, it affects a second weapon or shields and indicates a characters penalty when fighting that way. Without the shield bash rule you could not attack with a heavy shield and at -10 or -4 with a light shield, the shield bash rule allows you to fight with the shield thanks to a special maneauver that makes the shield lighter than it actually is. And as Lastknightleft indicates it doesnt matter where you hold the shield its still an off-hand attack to use the shield bash maneauver.
See my responces in bold
I and many others have already answered this many times above: You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
1. There is no restrictive language in the description of shield bash limiting it to only off hand attacks.
You still have to point out where in the rules are the restricted language in that statement. That is because there is none, it only say you can do something, not that you can't.
|
|
You still have to point out where in the rules are the restricted language in that statement. That is because there is none, it only say you can do something, not that you can't.See my responces in bold
I and many others have already answered this many times above: You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
1. There is no restrictive language in the description of shield bash limiting it to only off hand attacks.
So does that mean that I can hold a sword in my mouth and attack with it? it's not specified that I can't, sure all the language talks about using hands, but that's not the same as having a line that says "You can't hold a weapon in your teeth and attack with it." I mean no other weapon bothers to say you can attack with a sword as a primary attack, but this one specifies off hand attack, which apparently means it can be used as either. Oh hey I just realized the shield description says You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. But it doesn't say that I can't strap it to my leg and use my foot against the edge to hold it in place.
Woohoo, wait till I post my 4 shield fighter build that apparently is completely supported by the rules because the rules don't use restrictive language, yay!.
Dude, I got this. There's a shield enchantment in the Magic Item Compendium called "Ranged", it allows you to throw a shield as a ranged weapon and returns back to you. Practically the same as adding "Throwing" and "Returning" enchantments for the price of one. Just use a shield in one hand a BAM! You're CAPTAIN AMERICA!
I'm totally rolling up this character right now.
You still have to point out where in the rules are the restricted language in that statement. That is because there is none, it only say you can do something, not that you can't.See my responces in bold
I and many others have already answered this many times above: You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
1. There is no restrictive language in the description of shield bash limiting it to only off hand attacks.So does that mean that I can hold a sword in my mouth and attack with it? it's not specified that I can't, sure all the language talks about using hands, but that's not the same as having a line that says "You can't hold a weapon in your teeth and attack with it." I mean no other weapon bothers to say you can attack with a sword as a primary attack, but this one specifies off hand attack, which apparently means it can be used as either. Oh hey I just realized the shield description says You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. But it doesn't say that I can't strap it to my leg and use my foot against the edge to hold it in place.
Woohoo, wait till I post my 4 shield fighter build that apparently is completely supported by the rules because the rules don't use restrictive language, yay!.
I agree. Actually armor spikes in the armor section states that you can use it as a regular melee attack or offhand weapon. The fact that armor spikes is listed as both further proves the shield was only meant as an off-hand. I'm not against houserules sometimes, like the character who took catch off guard etc to use it as a primary, as that's like buying and exotic proficiency, but it's clear that shields RAW are meant for defense or offhand weapons only.
|
|
Also some things to remember with the posted build, since the one shield is being wielded as a weapon in the primary hand, it doesn't count as a shield bash. So it doesn't qualify for shield slam feat. It is possible however with the loose wording of shield master (it doesn't specify shield bashes) that it qualifies for that feat meaning you may (based on DM interpretation as to whether or not a shield is a weapon) not even suffer TWF penalties after getting that feat. It is important to add that odds are you enhanced one of the shields as a weapon and since enhancement bonuses don't stack you at least aren't doubling up your attack bonuses.
Personally for Shield master, I'd rule it only applied to the off hand shield, but I can see the argument for the other side.
I agree. Actually armor spikes in the armor section states that you can use it as a regular melee attack or offhand weapon. The fact that armor spikes is listed as both further proves the shield was only meant as an off-hand. I'm not against houserules sometimes, like the character who took catch off guard etc to use it as a primary, as that's like buying and exotic proficiency, but it's clear that shields RAW are meant for defense or offhand weapons only.
Taking Catch Off-Guard to use a shield in the primary hand wouldn't be a house rule if you interpret RAW as saying shield attacks can only be off-hand. It's either a weapon or an improvised weapon. Since you're interpreting it as a non-weapon, it must be considered an improvised weapon.
However, with regard to ruling shields a non-weapon for the primary hand, I vehemently disagree. It's listed as a weapon, which gives the rules for attacking. It then also gives rules for attacking instead of using it for defense, since it is the only type of weapon that normally gives a defensive bonus. It assumes that any shield being use for defense is located in the off-hand, and that's what's causing all the confusion. I believe the intent was that the only reason there are special rules is to clarify when you must consider whether a shield is giving an AC bonus. The fact that shield bashes incorporate whether or not AC is retained is why they mandated special attention. I would say RAW "shield bashes" (as modified by any appropriate feats) would only be allowable by an off-hand shield. That is a departure from my previous stance, but I think that's fairly irrelevant since only one shield can provide AC bonuses and multiple bull rushes are almost never going to be of any real benefit.
Regardless, I'm still house-ruling Shield Master (as covered in a previous post), because while the idea is cool, departing from standard TWF penalty reductions is not the ideal way to handle it.
To lastknightleft's comment that the rules don't say you can't hold a weapon in your teeth and attack with it...that's a false analogy. Shields *are* listed as weapons and the rules say you can attack with an appropriately-sized light or one-handed weapon with it carried in one hand. Nothing in the rules mentions carrying anything in your teeth, never mind attacking with said object, so that would be a DM call.
It is the shield being used for defense that is the exception, not the shield being used only as a weapon. From a rules standpoint, anyway.
However, with regard to ruling shields a non-weapon for the primary hand, I vehemently disagree. It's listed as a weapon, which gives the rules for attacking.
Completely incorrect, it is listed as armor. Shields are not listed anywhere in the rules text under weapons. Feel free to look in the Weapons section (PFRPG 140-149 I think), you won't see actual rules text describing them anywhere. The only place they are actually spelled out is in the Armor section, the description states under specific conditions (shield bash,off hand attack) the shield does damage (as per the table - the only reason that the shield has an entry on the table and is specifically explained) and is treated as a martial bludgeoning weapon when doing this specific attack (shield bash).
It then also gives rules for attacking instead of using it for defense, since it is the only type of weapon that normally gives a defensive bonus. It assumes that any shield being use for defense is located in the off-hand, and that's what's causing all the confusion.
It isn't the only type of weapon that normally gives a defensive bonus, the Klar(?) has already been brough up. It is a weapon that gives a defensive bonus. The shield is ARMOR that with specific conditions and restrictions can be used as a weapon. It never stops being armor though its armor bonus stops applying unless some other rules (feats) make an exception.
I believe the intent was that the only reason there are special rules is to clarify when you must consider whether a shield is giving an AC bonus. The fact that shield bashes incorporate whether or not AC is retained is why they mandated special attention. I would say RAW "shield bashes" (as modified by any appropriate feats) would only be allowable by an off-hand shield. That is a departure from my previous stance, but I think that's fairly irrelevant since only one shield can provide AC bonuses and multiple bull rushes are almost never going to be of any real benefit.
Again we are getting into your belief, which is an interpretation which doesn't follow the written word of the rules (which may or may not make sense in any particular person's opinion).
You saying it is an assumption doesn't mean it actually is AND as there are specific rules for the armor spike that say both main and off hand attacks are possible with them, your position loses further ground as that means the precedent is there for the rules actually stating main or off-hand or both. Shield bash doesn't say both, it says specifically off-hand. As for whether or not multiple bull rushes are going to be of any real benefit, that depends on the character build and again is your opinion and could be completely untrue in some specific case.
Regardless, I'm still house-ruling Shield Master (as covered in a previous post), because while the idea is cool, departing from standard TWF penalty reductions is not the ideal way to handle it.To lastknightleft's comment that the rules don't say you can't hold a weapon in your teeth and attack with it...that's a false analogy. Shields *are* listed as weapons and the rules say you can attack with an appropriately-sized light or one-handed weapon with it carried in one hand. Nothing in the rules mentions carrying anything in your teeth, never mind attacking with said object, so that would be a DM call.
FYI, someone further back in the post said that because the rules don't say something it is possible so lastkightleft's comment has some bearing on the post. It was an example of why that train of thought was less than useful for the game as a whole and how it leads to more issues. It was a point I brought up in a previous post as well. Again, shields *aren't* listed as weapons, they *are* listed as armor with a line that specifically calls out to look at the table to see the properties of the item when used in a specific way under specific conditions. Huge difference.
It is the shield being used for defense that is the exception, not the shield being used only as a weapon. From a rules standpoint, anyway.
So the item listed under the heading Armor is supposed to be a weapon? That is your argument? The rules state it is Armor, the description of the item says an off-hand attack (specifically off-hand mind you) can be made with it and has X-Z properties that are listed on a table someplace else in the book with A-C conditions. Mind you those conditions mean less than a handful of classes can actually accomplish the action with any success and you want to state that the shield being used as a shield is the exception to the rule because you say (incorrectly so as per the RAW) it is a weapon? The RULES say the shield is armor, sorry to disappoint you, that much is crystal clear.
Actually, the shields do have listings in the weapons. They refer you to the armor section. Seems fine to me, because as weapons there's nothing special, it's only when also using one for armor that you have to consider anything unique about them.
So it's listed under both. It even has values in the tables for both. So your point really doesn't go anywhere. It's still covered by the weapons rules as a general rule, and the specific rules for how to handle them as off-hand weapons with regard to how they interact when using their AC bonus. The specific adds to the general...it doesn't replace it unless it says so, which means they can still be used to make main-hand attacks as well.
The klar is not in the core rules, it's in the campaign setting, which was written under the rules of 3.5 and thus has as much relevance as a splatbook. If your DM wants to allow them, fine, whatever, but they're not core. And lest anyone say they had all the PFRPG revisions in mind with the campaign setting, I refer you to the bladed scarf, which is basically a 3.5 spiked chain with a different damage die and a better critical threat range. Considering how they changed the 3.5 spike chain, it's not relevant.
Lastknightleft's comment is irrelevant because it uses a logical fallacy, not because it was tangential. Yes, he was replying to someone, but that doesn't matter because a false analogy is a logical fallacy and thus the argument is void. I demonstrated the falseness of the analogy, which you countered by denying what is clearly in print, namely, shields are listed under weapons.
Shield, Heavy or Light:: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense. See page 152 for details.
Page 152 goes on to explain that you give up the defensive bonus when making shield bash attacks, and the feats later override that to allow you to retain your defensive bonuses. But none of that explicitly denies you the ability to make regular attacks, and since it's listed as a weapon, both on the table and in the individual listings, it's a weapon and regular weapon rules apply.
The difference here is a matter of interpretation, which I've never denied. I feel it is RAW as a weapon, and others don't. Since I don't play in your games and since I'm the DM for my friends, I really don't sweat what you think. But the nonsense that applies if they're not weapons is such that while I can see how someone could interpret the words as implying a restriction by not explicitly reassuring the allowance of main-hand attacks...from a strictly logical perspective, concluding that a shield, which is both a type of armor (sort of, they are exempt from many rules, like donning hastily and so forth), is also a type of weapon, and is specifically allowed to make a shield bash attack when otherwise wielded as armor...nowhere in that does it say that they cannot also make attacks like any other weapon. Since it does not explicitly deny it, the implicit allowance of attacks as a weapon must be upheld, because they are weapons.
It says so right on page 148.
Also, this isn't "Star Trek" logic, or real world logic (which usually isn't) or any of that nonsense, this is cold hard formal logic. Again, I can see how someone would feel it was implied, as humans frequently deny by omission, but from a formal logic standpoint it never denies their adherence to basic weapon attack rules in the main hand.
I believe the intent was that the only reason there are special rules is to clarify when you must consider whether a shield is giving an AC bonus. The fact that shield bashes incorporate whether or not AC is retained is why they mandated special attention. I would say RAW "shield bashes" (as modified by any appropriate feats) would only be allowable by an off-hand shield. That is a departure from my previous stance, but I think that's fairly irrelevant since only one shield can provide AC bonuses and multiple bull rushes are almost never going to be of any real benefit.Again we are getting into your belief, which is an interpretation which doesn't follow the written word of the rules (which may or may not make sense in any particular person's opinion).
You saying it is an assumption doesn't mean it actually is AND as there are specific rules for the armor spike that say both main and off hand attacks are possible with them, your position loses further ground as that means the precedent is there for the rules actually stating main or off-hand or both. Shield bash doesn't say both, it says specifically off-hand. As for whether or not multiple bull rushes are going to be of any real benefit, that depends on the character build and again is your opinion and could be completely untrue in some specific case.
I made clear what was my interpretation (notice the words "I believe"). So yeah, that was my interpretation of the written rules, so I'm not sure I can see how it "doesn't follow the written word of the rules" because, well, that's what I'm doing. I also made clear what I was house-ruling, which is one feat. This was all to avoid precisely this type of confusion, but obviously it didn't work in your case.
I also feel I can guess at their intent, which supports one interpretation of the written rules over another. The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that there are legitimate causes for interpretation. I can see both sides, but one requires a whole mess of contradictory rules (sometimes it's a weapon, sometimes it's improvised) and another doesn't (it's always a weapon if you want it to be, and usually it boosts your AC, too). I feel they intended the much more straightforward set, insofar as they didn't anticipate it would be an issue.
Also, I was explicitly saying that a strict interpretation of RAW would still dictate shield bashes could only be made off-hand. I mentioned it because in my earlier posts in the thread, I held the opposite stance. On reflection, I feel they can only be made off-hand via RAW, but even in my earlier interpretation I thought it was silly that they could make multiple free bull rushes (potentially)...although even RAW they can, it just requires more trips down the TWF feat tree.
So yes, shield bashes can only be made off-hand. Other attacks following normal rules (i.e. that don't potentially give you the benefit of the shield's AC and/or allow free bull rushes) can be made with either hand.
|
|
Lastknightleft's comment is irrelevant because it uses a logical fallacy, not because it was tangential. Yes, he was replying to someone, but that doesn't matter because a false analogy is a logical fallacy and thus the argument is void. I demonstrated the falseness of the analogy, which you countered by denying what is clearly in print, namely, shields are listed under weapons.
Um no you didn't dude, hate to break into your world where you're always right, but I didn't claim they made an attack with their teeth, I claimed that they held the weapon, take any weapon off that chart, and attacked with it. The rules don't specify that you have to hold a weapon in your hand and no-where else. They do say that you can hold a weapon in your primary or off hand, but in the same vein of ignoring rules because even though it mentions that you can attack with a shield as an off hand attack, it doesn't say you can't attack with a shield in your primary hand, i can say that it says you hold weapons in either hand but it doesn't say you can't hold them in your teeth and attack with them, it just isn't specifically ruled out.
Spiked Armor: You can outfit your armor with spikes,
which can deal damage in a grapple or as a separate attack.
See Armor, below, for details.Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor,
which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see “spiked
armor” on Table 6–4) 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.
What I love is somehow shields are a special case where it doesn't need to be spelled out, but armor spikes which are also on the weapons chart and the armor chart in the same way do (and armor spikes don't even provide armor bonuses), but you continuously ignore it because it doesn't help your argument. That's a great way to have the rules work, I wish I could see it that way,
player one:"Grappling always deals damage"
player two:"then why are there rules for grappling dealing damage as an option if it deals damage every time"
player one:"grappling is listed in special attacks, attacks deal damage"
player two:"But bullrush, disarm and the others don't and grappling has rules to deal damage which means that it sometimes doesn't deal damage"
Player one: "grappling is listed in special attacks, attacks deal damage."
Player two: *leaves*
and once again yes you can weild a shield in either hand, but when you attack with it, no matter what hand it's in, it's treated as an off hand attack.
|
|
A one-handed weapon can be used in either
the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength
bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed
weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength
bonus if it’s used in the off hand.
I'd also like to point out that off hands don't require two weapon fighting to be used. If you chose you can fight with just a longsword and nothing else and still wield it in your off hand. The only rule that exists about off hands is this one. And note that it doesn't say you have to be two weapon fighting to hold a weapon in your off hand, but what kind of idiot would willingly do that right (Inigo Montoya)?
The funny thing is that we only disagree on one small point.
Oh well.
To start, I never said the analogy involved attacking with teeth. I referred to carrying an object in teeth and attacking with "said object." Would "the aforementioned object" have been more clear? Again, since the rules specifically deal with attacking things with weapons carried in your hands but never addresses weapons carried in your teeth, the analogy is false. In one case, the rules explicitly say you can do something and you feel a later subset of those possible actions (off-hand attacks with shields that otherwise provide defensive bonuses), by omission of mentioning the rest of the set (attacks with shields that aren't providing defensive bonuses), negates the rest of the set (anything other than the defined shield bash off-hand attack). In your analogy, the case (mouth-wielded weapons) never falls within the original set of possible actions.
As you say, armor spikes are a special case. I never said otherwise (and the omission of the mention is not a denial of it, implicit or otherwise, which is kind of the entire part where our reading of RAW separates, so I'm not surprised to see you think I did or would say they aren't a special case). In fact, it makes sense that the rules spell out all the attacks you can make, since you don't actually hold them in either hand, and thus are not necessarily granted either type of attack. I can wish the shield rules were worded more clearly, but since I feel I am following RAW in allowing shield attacks (not shield bashes) with the primary hand, I don't think a rule change *has* to be made. Still, clarity is preferable. Regardless, special cases are not always expected to be handled identically, or they wouldn't be special cases.
Your grappling analogy is closer than the mouth-wielding one, but obviously there's no rule saying all types of attacks always deal damage. Combat maneuvers, which obviously include grappling, are a large set.
Yes, you can wield something in just your off-hand, but it's basically just volunteering to take an attack penalty (unless you're using the RAW Shield Master Feat). The Inigo Montoya reference is funny, since by PFRPG rules he would be just as good with either hand, so his fight with the Man in Black where they both switch from their left hands wouldn't change their attack rolls. Ah, the joys of abstraction. As a side note, the book is just as good as the movie. And the movie matches the book more than any other book/movie combo I can think of.
Also, as another side note, my bit about logic sounded crazy pretentious. It's just a pet peeve. I hate when people invoke the word and it has nothing to do with actual logic, and they instead mean "line of reasoning." Star Trek is one of the worst offenders (I sometimes wonder if any of their writers could solve an actual logic problem), and it's all too easy for people to use the "it doesn't work that way in the real world" line of reasoning and call it a type of logic. It's not a bad argument to make (formal logic isn't the be-all end-all way to convince someone of something), but since there are plenty of quirks in the abstraction and the characters can succeed with many implausible methods, it's an appeal to flavor that I don't think works because the flavor already has some really silly stuff in it.
|
|
The funny thing is that we only disagree on one small point.
Oh well.
To start, I never said the analogy involved attacking with teeth. I referred to carrying an object in teeth and attacking with "said object."
Well in all fairness if you look at my post what I actually said was, "If I put a sword in my teeth, so really you were the one changing sword into object and calling it unclear :)
But don't worry, we actually aren't that far off and it's nothing worth fighting over, the whole pony show is based off of two shield fighting something no fighting force has ever tried, ever. I mean I think you can attack with a shield but if you do it's a shield bash and it's off hand, and if you want a primary hand shield, well that's what improvised weapons are all about.
Didn't we have this thread just a couple months ago? I think it went a couple hundred posts, give or take. I think there was even a lively mid-thread discussion about alternative feats and houserules to make it extra uber.
Should be lots of info in there if anyone cares enough to go find it; but it certainly won't be me doing the searching.
Me, I'm armored enough. Besides, I think the whole idea of dual-wielding shields is preposterous. Next we'll be playing ninjas with superpowers and turtle shells.
Sorry, I don't mean to attack the OP. Your gaming experience is obviously quite different than mine, and I would never infringe upon your right to have it such. But I like my fantasy to contain a few shreds of realism or believability. Verisimilude is the common word for it. Fighting with two shields has nothing of that concept in it at all.
Have you checked out my chelonei race?
If you want to make a Ninja Chelonei that's up to you >.>
In case no one has mentioned it, Combat Facing Rules.