|
So, I just wanted clarification on this as it seems that the rule is a little in conflict.
A shield, when wielded as a weapon is to be treated as a light(Small) or One handed (Medium) Martial weapon. However, you can have proficiency in a shield without having proficiency in Martial Weapons. My question is that if you attempt a shield bash (or improved shield bash) but do not have the ability to use Martial Weapons, do you take an additional -4 to the attack roll? If you do need to take Martial Weapon Proficiency in order to wield the shield as a weapon effectively, do you actually have to take one in each class (small shield, small spiked shield, medium shield, medium spiked shield) to be effective with all of them?
I would think that having shield proficiency would allow you to wield a shield as a weapon.
What is it with people wanting to use Shields as weapons? Use a WEAPON as your weapon!
But aside from that - if you have a shield proficiency, I would argue that you've been trained in using that shield in all aspects - defensively and bashing. So a shield bash would not get the -4, if you have shield proficiency.
But that's just my opinion.
|
|
I know I know, I'm amazed too. The character concept is a stone Oracle that isn't a fighter but he lets his rock friends do the fighting for him (aka the Throw Rock ability). I wanted it so that if someone got too close to him, he could just hit them with his shield to get them away from him but other than that, he doesn't use a real weapon.
I would say you would have the penalty, they are listed as martial weapons not common ones
Edit: Ninjaed
I'm afraid that yes, you do take a non-proficiency penalty if you use a shield as a weapon without martial weapon proficiency. That's why they specifically call out shields as martial weapons.
Okay, that makes sense.
Actually no, he has a very valid question here regarding the common use of Shield Bash. He's not talking about that whole mess of dual wielding shield or anything. Maybe he plays a wizard who took Shield Proficiency or something, but doesn't have martial Proficiency.
The bash is listed as a martial weapon. So your " wizard " would suffer the -4 as he has not been trained on how to attack with a shield
Or is a cleric...
Haha, that's true too!
One problem with the "yes, you take the penalty" involves taking a look at the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat.
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.
You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Taken straight from the PRD.
So here, you only get proficiency with a single weapon when taking this feat. According to the reasonings above, if I am reading them correctly, while I am proficient in using a longsword (from Martial Weapon Proficiency: Longsword) I take the -4 penalty because I am not proficient in all martial weapons. That's kind of silly.
By taking Shield Proficiency, I become proficient in using a shield, the same as taking Martial Weapon Proficiency makes me proficient in using a martial weapon. So, I would rule no penalty to attack. The feat even says so.
Shield Proficiency
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.
Benefit: When you use a shield (except a tower shield), the shield's armor check penalty only applies to Strength- and Dexterity-based skills.
Normal: When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield's armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving.
Special: Barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, fighters, paladins, and rangers all automatically have Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
Taken straight from the PRD.
Without the feat, you take penalties to attack rolls (all attack rolls) when using a shield. With the feat you only take penalties to strength and dexterity checks, but not attack rolls. It does not say that you no longer take penalties to attack rolls when using a weapon that is not the shield, just that you don't take attack roll penalties from the shield to attacks. This combined with the wording of Martial Weapon Proficiency lead me to rule that, if your wizard took Shield Proficiency, he could bash away with his abysmal BAB and strength.
|
|
So here, you only get proficiency with a single weapon when taking this feat. According to the reasonings above, if I am reading them correctly, while I am proficient in using a longsword (from Martial Weapon Proficiency: Longsword) I take the -4 penalty because I am not proficient in all martial weapons. That's kind of silly.
You take -4 to hit when using all martial weapons except a longsword.
By taking Shield Proficiency, I become proficient in using a shield, the same as taking Martial Weapon Proficiency makes me proficient in using a martial weapon. So, I would rule no penalty to attack. The feat even says so.
Shield Proficiency is for knowing how to use the shield defensively.
Martial Weapon Proficiency: Shield lets you bash with a shield without penalty.
I would agree with you, except the feat also states this:
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.
Proper use a shield has long include hitting and pushing with it. There were warrior cultures, such as the Spartans, who did not even give their warriors a weapon until well into their training. Do you think they were just blocking swords and spears for a year? No. They were learning how to fully defend and attack using this singular piece of equipment. Vikings were the same (though on a more truncated time table). A shield bash was used to stun an opponent, if it didn't outright kill them, making it much easier to stab and slash away at the enemy. Cultures like this are one of the reasons I have no problem with the sword and board two weapon fighting builds.
I would agree with you, except the feat also states this:
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.Proper use a shield has long include hitting and pushing with it. There were warrior cultures, such as the Spartans, who did not even give their warriors a weapon until well into their training.
That sounds to me like you are describing Fighters, or some other class with martial weapon proficiency. In which case, knowing how to use the shield offensively is part of the class ability.
For a class with some martial training but whose main focus is elsewhere (such as clerics), shield proficiency means you know how to hold the shield and use it to block blows without it interfering too much with what you want to do. You know you can use it to shove at people, but while Freddy Fighter was learning the most effective way to do that, you were learning how to cast Cure Light Wounds when you had prepared Bless.
I would agree with you, except the feat also states this:
You are trained in how to properly use a shield.Proper use a shield has long include hitting and pushing with it. There were warrior cultures, such as the Spartans, who did not even give their warriors a weapon until well into their training.That sounds to me like you are describing Fighters, or some other class with martial weapon proficiency. In which case, knowing how to use the shield offensively is part of the class ability.
I agree here, using the shield as a weapon would be a martial thing.
Another viewpoint:
Is Shield Bash so good it warrants the use of 2 feats?IMO no, so Shield Prof removes the -4 on attacks with shields.
Two words for ya. Bastard sword. It also needs 2 feats
Two words for ya. Bastard sword. It also needs 2 featsAnother viewpoint:
Is Shield Bash so good it warrants the use of 2 feats?IMO no, so Shield Prof removes the -4 on attacks with shields.
Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.
Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.That said, it does seem that strictly by RAW you'd need to take the martial wep proficiency for your shield to bash with it, but look at it this way: one feat to use a shield for bonus AC, and a second feat to use a shield as a weapon as well. You are getting benefit from both feats.
Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.
Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.
But I would never allow a player to skip one feat, you would need both feats to use a bastard sword. It is a martial weapon, but the feat allows it one handed. You can not use it one handed if you could not use it to start with. Same with the shield
But I would never allow a player to skip one feat, you would need both feats to use a bastard sword. It is a martial weapon, but the feat allows it one handed. You can not use it one handed if you could not use it to start with. Same with the shield
Comparing Apples to Oranges here, even if you took Exotic Weapon Proficiency Bastard Sword on a character not proficient with it's martial equivalent and the GM decreed you didn't know how to swing it around with 2-hands.
Shields are a martial weapon, not exotic.
Strictly by the rules, nothing ever says you need to be proficient with a Bastard Sword as a Martial Weapon before you take EWP and get it as an exotic weapon, though you do need to be proficient with at least one martial weapon to qualify for the feat.
Personally I'd allow anyone who qualified for the feat to take EWP Bastard Sword and get it 1 and 2handed, but then I don't like making my players take ungodly amounts of feats for what eventually equates to +1 or +2 to damage. Generally I find they want to do these things for a concept more.
Ah shields. They make people so angry. They really are every bit as much an offensive as defensive weapon. But I agree with the two-feat plan. Really the offensive part takes more training than just getting it in the way of an oncoming blow. And I'm surprised people don't understand why someone would want to fight with weapon and shield. anyone who's seen troy, or Kingdom of Heaven understands that shields rock when used properly. They are weapons. Its why the feats were changed in Pathfinder so that a board and sword fighter can fight as well as a two-weapon fighter. Better really, since he can get his shield ac bonus
Yep TWF sword and board looks fun, And it would only be two feats if your not a class with martial weapons, full BAB class are trained, and classes like the cleric would just cost em one feat, so I am fine with it