If you duel wield 2 shields both with spikes and bashing making them 2d6 damage can you attack with them both or just the off hand one as stated by the line that says you can shield bash with a shield in your off hand.
If this is possable can you really have two of shields that do 2d6 damage with two weapon fighting?
If you want your two weapon fighting penalties to be reasonable (only -2 attack for each shield), you must wield a Bashing spiked light shield in your off hand, that only does d8 damage.
While it is slightly freakish, I don't know of any specific rule snags against doing this.
Not sure how you would arm them, or take them off? But they would do 1d6 each or really 1d6 for 1 , 1d4 for the light, still I have no clue how you'll get them on or off without help
Here we go again. ;-)
Might be easier to read This Thread. There's a couple more like it in the archives if you look. Basiclly there are two camps. The The 'Sure why not it's a cool idea and would look Badass™' camp and the 'No, not really it's completely unrealistic and there is no historical precedent' camp.
If you want your two weapon fighting penalties to be reasonable (only -2 attack for each shield), you must wield a Bashing spiked light shield in your off hand, that only does d8 damage.
how are you getting 1d8? A light shield spike is 1d4, medium 1d6
Basiclly there are two camps. The The 'Sure why not it's a cool idea and would look Badass™' camp and the 'No, not really it's completely unrealistic and there is no historical precedent' camp.
What about the "help me guys I need to go to the restroom and can't take my shields off by myself" group?
With regards to bash dmg:
When the OP used the term Bashing spiked shield, I'm sure he was referring to the Bashing property for magic shields, which allows it to do bash damage as if it were 2 sizes larger.
So heavy shield= 2d6 and light shield = 1d8
With regards to bash dmg:
When the OP used the term Bashing spiked shield, I'm sure he was referring to the Bashing property for magic shields, which allows it to do bash damage as if it were 2 sizes larger.
So heavy shield= 2d6 and light shield = 1d8
ah ok, I so overlooked the bashing property and thought he meant ya know bashing
that is a completely understandable mistake.
Basiclly there are two camps. The The 'Sure why not it's a cool idea and would look Badass™' camp and the 'No, not really it's completely unrealistic and there is no historical precedent' camp.What about the "help me guys I need to go to the restroom and can't take my shields off by myself" group?
Because letting go of a handle and sliding your arm out of a strap is so difficult. ::eye roll::
Next you'll tell me it takes a crane to get a guy in full plate on the back of a horse.
he wanted two medium shields, which if I am not mistaken are strapped on. Now if he wants to use a light one he can just drop that, but still funny watching him try and put em both on.
he wanted two medium shields, which if I am not mistaken are strapped on. Now if he wants to use a light one he can just drop that, but still funny watching him try and put em both on.
The strap isn't strapped to the arm, it simply holds the shield in place. An actual buckled down sort of strap would be a hinderance when you go to drop the shield when it breaks (which actually happens a lot).
You have a point, I can see the strap braking under a good hit. still be damned hard to "arm" without help I would think anyhow, with a spike on the front a bit more so.
You have a point, I can see the strap braking under a good hit. still be damned hard to "arm" without help I would think anyhow, with a spike on the front a bit more so.
Yeah, actually getting the shields up would be harder than getting them off. However if he starts with the heavy and grabs the light (assuming he uses a light and heavy) it would be more feasible. Keeping the light on a lanyard would make it easier to get to (and is historically accurate to a degree too).
I know some used a small spiked shield, Scottish I think, it just seems like it be a hella mess to get on outside of a practice yard or something. Not something ya could do fast I would think
I know some used a small spiked shield, Scottish I think, it just seems like it be a hella mess to get on outside of a practice yard or something. Not something ya could do fast I would think
The Scottish Targe was and early spiked shield... the Irish had a shield that was spiked at the top and bottom too... Ironically the vikings didn't spike their shield due to construction practices for shields and the fact they broke their shields too easily. When going to a duel they would take 3 shields with them for the duel fully expecting to not come home with any of them. Once Iron came into regard use the shield that could last out several fights wasn't as common.
yes i did mean the bashign property and spike therefore the 2d6 so the question still remians can you wield and attack through TWF with 2 heavy shields doing 2d6 each? also whats the rules for making the spikes like flaming?
2 points
1 if both of your shields are heavy shields, you take a -4 to attack with both shields while two weapon fighting. If your off hand shield is a light shield, you take a -2 to attack with both shields.
2 Enchanting a shield as a weapon uses the normal rules for crafting a magic weapon. Typical shield enhancement bonuses and qualities, don't count for anything when enchanting it as a weapon.
So for example, a +2 Bashing shield costs 9000 gp to enchant. If you also wanted to make it a +2 Flaming weapon, that would cost you an additional 18,000 gp. You would have to record that shield on your character sheet as a Spiked Bashing Shield +2 (Flaming Weapon +2), or in whatever manner makes sense to you.
Dilvish the Danged:
That would only last until 11th level when the biggest point of contention comes into play...
The dreaded Shield Mastery feat...
Actually I didn't forget about it, I was consciously avoiding the issue.
I think the most sensible way to interpret the Shield Master feat is that only the shield that is actually benefiting your AC with it's shield bonus counts for the feat. The other one is a weapon, for the purposes of the feat.
I admit that the rules do not make this clear, but I am 99.9999% certain that the feat was not meant to facilitate two shield fighting.
well thank you for all the replies and the rules appear to be as i fear, the fighter in my current campaign just approached me on doing this he is level 10 atm so next level he will have shield mastery. I fear as the rules appear to be right now i will have to set a house rule in which doesn't let him have full rain with this combo,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm disappointed. I figured from the title we'd all be getting together and pointing out what's wrong with shields.
"You're rigid and inflexible!"
Here we go again. ;-)
Might be easier to read This Thread. There's a couple more like it in the archives if you look. Basiclly there are two camps. The The 'Sure why not it's a cool idea and would look Badass™' camp and the 'No, not really it's completely unrealistic and there is no historical precedent' camp.
You forget the "your character will die an early and undignified death if he tries this" camp. }>
Urm, why not?
I mean seriously, he's dumped quite a few extra feats into this, why not let him do it? Is it seriously that much worse than the other silly kill-tastic things he could be doing with his feats?
Well simply put this gives the guy two greatswords worth of damage with no penalty to attack at 11th level, that doesn't seem a little overpowered to you? Yes he gives up some feats but there is no ammount of feats you can take right now that allows you to TWF with 2 greatswords.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean seriously, he's dumped quite a few extra feats into this, why not let him do it? Is it seriously that much worse than the other silly kill-tastic things he could be doing with his feats?
I posted a specific example in another similar thread, but I'll sum up:
A two-heavy-shield basher at 11th level only needs to put in three feats (improved shield bash, shield slam, shield master), bashing shield.Another twf guy could put in the same number of feats to get similar damage and effect, with slightly better crits, worse chance to hit. (Improved Buckler Defense, Weapon focus, Weapon spec if a fighter)
But the TWF guy pays about 2.5x as much to get the same weapons and shield.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Basiclly there are two camps. The The 'Sure why not it's a cool idea and would look Badass™' camp and the 'No, not really it's completely unrealistic and there is no historical precedent' camp.What about the "help me guys I need to go to the restroom and can't take my shields off by myself" group?
They wear kilts.
|
Well simply put this gives the guy two greatswords worth of damage with no penalty to attack at 11th level, that doesn't seem a little overpowered to you? Yes he gives up some feats but there is no ammount of feats you can take right now that allows you to TWF with 2 greatswords.
Monkey Grip + Oversized 2-weapon Fighting. 2 Greatswords Dual Wield. Same damage output. Not that I am advocating it, just pointing it out.
Well simply put this gives the guy two greatswords worth of damage with no penalty to attack at 11th level, that doesn't seem a little overpowered to you? Yes he gives up some feats but there is no ammount of feats you can take right now that allows you to TWF with 2 greatswords.Monkey Grip + Oversized 2-weapon Fighting. 2 Greatswords Dual Wield. Same damage output. Not that I am advocating it, just pointing it out.
oversized TWF isnt in the pathfinder core book though.... it was in 3.5 so where are you getting this feat from?
oversized TWF isnt in the pathfinder core book though.... it was in 3.5 so where are you getting this feat from?Monkey Grip + Oversized 2-weapon Fighting. 2 Greatswords Dual Wield. Same damage output. Not that I am advocating it, just pointing it out.
Monkey grip also didn't allow for an oversized offhand weapon. You had to use a small greatsword in your offhand if you wanted all the feats to work, and the -2 to hit and smaller weapon die generally weren't worth it.
Shields have terrible crit, thats a huge balancing factor.
If you duel wield 2 shields both with spikes and bashing making them 2d6 damage can you attack with them both or just the off hand one as stated by the line that says you can shield bash with a shield in your off hand.
I would say, by RAW, that a shield bash is never a primary attack, but always an off hand attack, even with Shield Mastery preventing any penalty for that off hand attack. Any hypothetical two Shield build will get caught on having no primary attack. My suggestion is to use a kukri or light pick in the main hand.
Correction:
You can't apply Bashing to spiked shields.
So it's a much less impressive 1d8 heavy, 1d6 light shield.
Correction:
You can't apply Bashing to spiked shields.So it's a much less impressive 1d8 heavy, 1d6 light shield.
and what is your thought process behind this?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Here, I'm going to enchant my shield specifically so that it's a better weapon! Sorry, you can't do that, because it's already been spiked, so it's a more effective weapon.
I'd love to know from where you draw that conclusion.
The answer is not specifically stated, but inferred in the rules.
The BASHING property is a SHIELD based ability - the cost of which is based on "Bonus X Bonus X 1000 Gp"
Spikes on the other hand, when added to an otherwise magical shield are NOT considered themselves to be enchanted.
To enchant said spikes it follows the WEAPONS chart
"Bonus X Bonus X 2000 Gp"
Bashing is NOT on the weapons property charts as allowed.
The Bashing on the shield list allows a shield to be considered a +1 weapon, AND do greater damage as a shield bash - merely a d8 for a Hvy Shield (increased from d4).
Adding spikes to said shield would need to be enchanted seperately, and would NOT gain a damage spike (pun intended) for the use of that shield-based property.
EDIT: The next thing one would need to hash out is - would a shield with the bashing ability (and increased damage) ALSO allow damage to a shield that added spikes that were enchanted (via weapons chart) with Holy or Lightning etc.
The answer I presume would determine IF such a weapon strikes as a Piercing/Bludgeoning or ONLY Piercing. The former I would say could allow both (though the enhancement bonuses wouldn't stack for attack and dmg rolls). If it was Piercing ONLY, then logic would dictate that ONLY the enchantments on the spikes are relevant and the Bashing on the blugeoning shield end of it becomes moot. /Edit
Robert
Here, I'm going to enchant my shield specifically so that it's a better weapon! Sorry, you can't do that, because it's already been spiked, so it's a more effective weapon.
I'd love to know from where you draw that conclusion.
The answer is not specifically stated, but inferred in the rules.
The BASHING property is a SHIELD based ability - the cost of which is based on "Bonus X Bonus X 1000 Gp"
Spikes on the other hand, when added to an otherwise magical shield are NOT considered themselves to be enchanted.
To enchant said spikes it follows the WEAPONS chart
"Bonus X Bonus X 2000 Gp"
Bashing is NOT on the weapons property charts as allowed.
The Bashing on the shield list allows a shield to be considered a +1 weapon, AND do greater damage as a shield bash - merely a d8 for a Hvy Shield.
Adding spikes to said shield would need to be enchanted seperately, and would NOT gain a damage spike (pun intended) for the use of that shield-based property.
Robert
I would agree with this, bashing or spikes, really the spikes would rule out the bashing as they"hit" first. or ya take the higher of the two, damages do not stack, you can't tie a short sword to a long sword and get 1d8+1d6 after all
The spikes would not be enhanced, just the shield.
Also note a +1 shield does not add to the spikes hit or damage, that is an armor bonus not a weapon bonus. The spikes will have to be enchanted on there own
|
|
EDIT: The next thing one would need to hash out is - would a shield with the bashing ability (and increased damage) ALSO allow damage to a shield that added spikes that were enchanted (via weapons chart) with Holy or Lightning etc.
The answer I presume would determine IF such a weapon strikes as a Piercing/Bludgeoning or ONLY Piercing. The former I would say could allow both (though the enhancement bonuses wouldn't stack for attack and dmg rolls). If it was Piercing ONLY, then logic would dictate that ONLY the enchantments on the spikes are relevant and the Bashing on the blugeoning shield end of it becomes moot. /Edit
Robert
For the record, I'm inclined to believe such a weapon attacks as Piercing only, the two could not be combined for one attack; but you could have spikes on one shield and the bashing (bludgeoning) on the other.....
Regardless, the rules infer that the combo that the OP was expressing would not actually make for a "dual-Greatsword" amount of damage.
Robert
|
|
Adding spikes to said shield would need to be enchanted seperately, and would NOT gain a damage spike (pun intended) for the use of that shield-based property.
Robert
If I may add one more point to what I said here:
Essentially - trying to utilize the "BASHING" property to place on shield spikes would be the equivalent of adding it to a Mace and expecting it to do 2d6 damage (as far as the rules are concerned).
Robert
There's a weird effect I've noticed over and over again with rules in D&D... people seem to have a magic ability to miss the last sentences of spells, and other rule blocks.
And I'm not being snide, I did it just yesterday:
I, repeatedly, never noticed the section under PF animal companions that states you can choose not to have your companion increase in size but, rather, give the animal +2 Dex and +2 Con. Someone pointed this out after I complained that there wasn't a way to have animal companions not get bigger. ... Doh.
Anyhow, on topic, under the text for Bashing:
'Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.'
Also note that Bashing has two effects: the shield is treated as a +1 weapon, damage from bashing is increased.
I think the intent is to give a nod for a non-spiked shield user, one who doesn't want to sink a lot (or any) cash into weapon enchantments.
Also note that Bashing has two effects: the shield is treated as a +1 weapon, damage from bashing is increased.
I think the intent is to give a nod for a non-spiked shield user, one who doesn't want to sink a lot (or any) cash into weapon enchantments.
I noticed that it says shield, not shield spike as well. Not the same thing, the bashing has no effect on the spike, which the book says must be enchanted by it's self
PRD "An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right."
The shield bashing enhancement does not effect the spike.
Essentially - trying to utilize the "BASHING" property to place on shield spikes would be the equivalent of adding it to a Mace and expecting it to do 2d6 damage (as far as the rules are concerned).
Except the rules explicitly state that you can make a shield bash with a spiked shield [p148, pathfinder core]. There are no such rules that allow you to make a bashing attack with a mace.
First off the 3.5 FAQ is meaningless, 2nd. You make the attack like a bash, it never calls it a bash. It states the spike must be enhanced like a weapon, the bashing enhancement is not a weapon enhancement and so does not effect the spike
Bashing is a bludgeoning attack, not a slice , not a stab, it's bashing. You do not bash with a dagger, you do not bash with a longsword. The spike attack is handled like a bash{as it's mounted on a shield" but is not a bash, which is a bludgeoning attack
Maezer, first of all, your unproductive attitude is noted and will appear on your next review. Sniff.
Actually, you convinced me... I didn't realize the faq said that.
Though it strikes me as odd that they would have worded it that way when other shield-focused enchantments don't have anything of the sort.
Maezer, first of all, your unproductive attitude is noted and will appear on your next review. Sniff.
Actually, you convinced me... I didn't realize the faq said that.
Though it strikes me as odd that they would have worded it that way when other shield-focused enchantments don't have anything of the sort.
Honestly, between the FAQ, customer service responses, and errata, WOTC had a tendency to be on every side of an issue. I generally went with the actual errata documents and ignored the rest, but that's obviously not the only way to roll with these sorts of things, and its perfectly understandable if someone wants to go with the FAQ, but probably not too shocking if someone didn't want to go with it as well.