Im new to the system and a little confused. My GF's barbarian has a spiked shield, it says it can be used and does damage. my question is, is it considered 2 weapon fighting if used? and thus use the 2 weapon penalties, or since our intent is to use it instead of the normal onehander she's using, when the need arises is it just considered a single attack?
basically im wondering if she can switch between using her longsword and shield as her main weapon without incurring a duel wield penalty consiering as she wont be using it as an extra attack in a round but as the only attack instead of the sword.
however she is using it in the off hand so im wondering what, if any penalties would be applied.
Im new to the system and a little confused. My GF's barbarian has a spiked sheild, it says it can be used and does damage. my question is, is it considered 2 weapon fighting if used? and thus use the 2 weapon penalties, or since our intent is to use it istead of the normal onehander she using when the need arises is it just considered a single attack?
basically im wondering if she can switch between using her longsword and shield as her main weapon without incurring a duel wield penalty consiering as she wont be using it as an extra attack in a round but as the only attack instead of the sword.however sahe is using it in the off hand so im wondering what, if any penalties would be applied.
Heavy shields are one-handed weapons, whereas light shields are considered light (it's right on the weapons table). Neither are considered double weapons, not even with spikes.
Think of the spikes as an augmentation. All they do is increase the damage and change it from bludgeoning to piercing. It is still the same (single) weapon it used to be.
If the only attack comes from the shield hand, then it is considering the main hand for that round and no penalties apply.
If the only attack comes from the shield hand, then it is considering the main hand for that round and no penalties apply.
I've actually had someone argue differently with me before.
You're still right of course.
Heh, i wish things were a bit better laid out in the book I guess. for example the shield discription should make note about off hand bonuses and where to find it, i just found on page 179 under Damege/stregth bonus that the strength bonus is halved for attacking with an off hand weapon. thus my GF's shield bash would only get half her strength bonus if she uses that instead of her primary weapon....
Heh, i wish things were a bit better laid out in the book I guess. for example the shield discription should make note about off hand bonuses and where to find it, i just found on page 179 under Damege/stregth bonus that the strength bonus is halved for attacking with an off hand weapon. thus my GF's shield bash would only get half her strength bonus if she uses that instead of her primary weapon....
Off-hand as a state only exists when you are wielding two weapons. If you are wielding a single weapon then the term "off-hand" simply doesn't apply to you--ever. Look at every single instance of the word off-hand--it is always in reference to dual-wielding.
Off-hand as a state only exists when you are wielding two weapons. If you are wielding a single weapon then the term "off-hand" simply doesn't apply to you--ever. Look at every single instance of the word off-hand--it is always in reference to dual-wielding.Which is what she is doing. "Dual wielding" does not necessitate multiple attacks. If I've got a longsword in my main hand and a dagger in my off hand, any attack I make with the dagger would be an "off hand" attack.
Do you see anything that states that off hand penalties only apply when making attacks with multiple weapons? Or anywhere that explicitly states that everyone in Pathfinder is automatically ambidextrous?
Heh, i wish things were a bit better laid out in the book I guess. for example the shield discription should make note about off hand bonuses and where to find it, i just found on page 179 under Damege/stregth bonus that the strength bonus is halved for attacking with an off hand weapon. thus my GF's shield bash would only get half her strength bonus if she uses that instead of her primary weapon....
Well there are two sides of the argument, just take a look in the messageboards for posts about dual wielding shields. Obviously Ravingdork has given his opinion, so I guess I'll give mine.
The description of the shield bash states it is an off hand attack, unlike other weapons (like armor spikes) which have no such restricting language in the description, so I agree with your assessment of what the attack ends up doing damage wise. By a strict reading of the description that also means that the shield would have to be used in a two weapon fighting style as that is the only time off hand attacks come up like Ravingdork has mentioned. It would also mean that it could never be used as a primary attack as if you are using two weapons the description of the shield bash attack autmatically assigns it to the "off hand" in such a situation. Even if she would only be armed with the shield, her fist is for all intents and purposes another weapon (albeit inferior) which again means the shield would be the "off hand." I see that as the developers imposing a limit on the attack and basically relegating it to the function they had envisioned it, they used specific language in the description to that effect essentially.
Now the argument/discussion has been going on for some time. No one from Paizo has given a "this is how we think it should be" even though there have been posts by Paizo members. About the only thing they have said on it has been "Be nice, some of these posts are getting nasty." Honestly, it's your game do what you want, is the way I look at it. Just if you are going to rule things that contradict what the book has written make sure everyone knows about it and other house rules up front. Our group has a few people who DM depending on how people feel and etc. We tend to keep as much to RAW as possible so there is little confusion between the games, we don't want a packet of house rules for 3-4 different people. We also don't mind having to "work" to get a concept created by jumping through hoops because of the rules, to me it is fun, like a puzzle. And when it works it makes the game that much more enjoyable. The only thing that irks me sometimes is when people play "house rules" or bent RAW and then argue that is what the game says beacuse that is how they think it should be. When discussing the rules on a message board I think too many people get caught up in their game and what the rules actually say. It bothers me because when people come looking for answers about questions there are 20+ differing opinions on 4+ ways to do something and no one is saying "this is our house rule, not the rule written in the book." If it is a question on how the rules work, get that out of the way, then if its clunky or way out there, give your opinion on how it should work or how it could be better done.
|
Even if she would only be armed with the shield, her fist is for all intents and purposes another weapon (albeit inferior) which again means the shield would be the "off hand."
Nonsense. I built a Captain America fighter at one point who used that shield in his main hand as his main weapon.
The penalties are based on whichever hand is your primary hand. You find the penalties and the rules for them under light, one-handed and two-handed melee weapons. page 141. It has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting or wielding multiple weapons, just which arm it is strapped to. If you have that bad boy on your main arm, you do full strength. If you don't, you don't. That simple.
As for dual-shielding... it is an interesting idea and it certainly sounds cool... but shield bonuses don't stack.
|
|
Even if she would only be armed with the shield, her fist is for all intents and purposes another weapon (albeit inferior) which again means the shield would be the "off hand."Nonsense. I built a Captain America fighter at one point who used that shield in his main hand as his main weapon.
The penalties are based on whichever hand is your primary hand. You find the penalties and the rules for them under light, one-handed and two-handed melee weapons. page 141. It has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting or wielding multiple weapons, just which arm it is strapped to. If you have that bad boy on your main arm, you do full strength. If you don't, you don't. That simple.
As for dual-shielding... it is an interesting idea and it certainly sounds cool... but shield bonuses don't stack.
Sorry, but your Captain America was a houserule. By RAW a shield bash is always an off-hand attack. Since off-hand implies two-weapon fighting, even if a character is only holding a shield, they need to be two-weapon fighting to shield bash. Meaning fist, fist, shield.
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor/shield-light-wooden-or-stee l
|
|
Nonsense. I built a Captain America fighter at one point who used that shield in his main hand as his main weapon.
When did the word anecdotal start getting dropped from in front of evidence so that people could just call a thing they did once proof positive that someone else's argument was "nonsense?" Anecdotal evidence is rarely useful to rules discussions.
This is so bloody simple.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
Emphasis mine.
That being said, I don't see a big problem in allowing a shield bash as a sole attack, rules or not. If your bard can switch from a longsword in his right hand to the whip in his left hand without a problem, doing a single shield bash (spikes or not) definitely sounds feasible from a common sense perspective and doesn't look too powergamey to me.
Generally I would've preferred if shield bashes were handled as some combat maneuvers (or providing bonuses to the same), instead of being thrown in with two-weapon fighting – which always struck me as eminently silly, especially at higher levels. And it would get rid of the occasional "can I use two shields" post, from whatever anime people are getting that…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just tell your GF to get the feat "double slice" and she can use her full strength bonus on damage with her shield bash.
Yes, shields are an "off hand" attack.
A fun way to play with shield bash is go the TWF route and just use small shields in your off hand (light weapon).
My question for the group would be... if I have a large/heavy shield made out of mithril, should it count as a light weapon for my off hand attack?
Mithral says that armor is treated as one size category lighter, so I think I would allow a large mithral shield to be treated as if it were a small steel shield on the off hand.
Not sure if RAW handles it one way or the other, so it'd be up to the GM.
|
|
Mithral says that armor is treated as one size category lighter, so I think I would allow a large mithral shield to be treated as if it were a small steel shield on the off hand.
Not sure if RAW handles it one way or the other, so it'd be up to the GM.
Hmmm, it's not legal by RAW by a wide margin. If the entry said that one handed mithral weapons were treated as light then it would be a different situation altogether.
How about this ... is this correct:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Casts detect magic*
*Detects an Overwhelming Necromancy Aura*
*Receives the stunned condition for 1 round*
Eh, necroing just to post the FAQ that answers a question isn't bad form.
Attacking with the spike is not a shield bash. A shield bash is making an attack with a standard shield that has no augmentation. The first is a piercing attack, the second a blunt.
Eh, necroing just to post the FAQ that answers a question isn't bad form.
If the FAQ was new I might agree, but this one's six years old.
Sure.
If you were using the shield as an off-hand weapon.
You otherwise apply full Strength modifier like any other one-handed/light weapon. There's no reason to treat it any different than any other main-hand/single-wielding weapon.
Attacking with the spike is not a shield bash. A shield bash is making an attack with a standard shield that has no augmentation. The first is a piercing attack, the second a blunt.
Not to pick nits, but just gonna quote the CRB
"Spiked Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a spiked shield instead of using it for defense"
|
Attacking with the spike is not a shield bash. A shield bash is making an attack with a standard shield that has no augmentation. The first is a piercing attack, the second a blunt.
Definitely a grey area. Not because you are wrong, but because the rules don't work very well in the CRB if something counts as multiple things. Shields are shields, not weapons, even though they count as weapons when used to attack and can be enchanted as weapons (how's that for confusing....).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking with the spike is not a shield bash. A shield bash is making an attack with a standard shield that has no augmentation. The first is a piercing attack, the second a blunt.Definitely a grey area. Not because you are wrong, but because the rules don't work very well in the CRB if something counts as multiple things. Shields are shields, not weapons, even though they count as weapons when used to attack and can be enchanted as weapons (how's that for confusing....).
You can't be serious with that statement. You just can't.
Shields are crafted, meaning they're manufactured, like most other weapons, such as Greatswords, Scimitars, and so on.
They can be enhanced as Magic Weapons, like any other manufactured weapons.
They're listed on the Weapons Table, with other weapons that MOST EVERY PLAYER would unanimously consider to be weapons.
They are also listed as weapons that are enhanced in relation to Fighter Weapon Groups.
You TWF with Shields normally, and they are either Main-hand or Off-hand weapons.
There is even a FAQ that was listed (by the powers of Necromancy, no less) that states Shields aren't restricted to off-hand use, meaning they aren't "sub-weapons" that have their own category, either.
There is so much evidence that proves Shields are Weapons, and they have the same qualities as any other unanimously-assumed weapon, and then some, that anyone who says otherwise is illiterate, in the same vein that people who say the sky isn't blue is color-blind.
It's a good thing what you posited is merely a joke, right?
Right?
|
|
It's a good thing what you posited is merely a joke, right?Right?
Not a joke. It's a mechanic issue with the CRB, not an issue of common sense. The Shield is a Shield always, even if it has special rules (called shield bash) which allow it to be used as a weapon. Not all shields even have shield bash.
If you want a short list of only some of the differences between shields and weapons:
-Masterwork shields don't gain a +1 on attack rolls, it instead applies to their armor check penalty.
-Armor check penalties apply to shields, even if using them to shield bash (which is attacking via the weapon profile on the weapon table, as explained in their description)
-If you are not trained in shields, but have the appropriate weapon training skill for shield bashing, the armor check penalty applies as a penalty for your attack roll.
-Shields cannot be quick drawn, since they are not weapons. There are feats for this, if you want to be able to quick draw a shield, but it isn't the same thing. This is why most sword and board users keep the shield equipped while wandering about.
-The Arcane Failure applies regardless of using the shield to attack or defend.
-Shields are not wielded. This really matters for the Buckler, which is able to be equipped in the same hand that you are wielding a weapon. A light shield's hand can still be carrying objects while the shield is equipped.
I will note that you can use a shield as an improvised weapon (damage up to the GM), and in that case, it is a normal improvised weapon. The difference here is that the shield is not being equipped as armor at all, it's just a club or throwing disc that happens to be intended to function as shield.
It's a good thing what you posited is merely a joke, right?Right?
Not a joke. It's a mechanic issue with the CRB, not an issue of common sense. The Shield is a Shield always, even if it has special rules (called shield bash) which allow it to be used as a weapon. Not all shields even have shield bash.
If you want a short list of only some of the differences between shields and weapons:
-Masterwork shields don't gain a +1 on attack rolls, it instead applies to their armor check penalty.
-Armor check penalties apply to shields, even if using them to shield bash (which is attacking via the weapon profile on the weapon table, as explained in their description)
-If you are not trained in shields, but have the appropriate weapon training skill for shield bashing, the armor check penalty applies as a penalty for your attack roll.
-Shields cannot be quick drawn, since they are not weapons. There are feats for this, if you want to be able to quick draw a shield, but it isn't the same thing. This is why most sword and board users keep the shield equipped while wandering about.
-The Arcane Failure applies regardless of using the shield to attack or defend.
-Shields are not wielded. This really matters for the Buckler, which is able to be equipped in the same hand that you are wielding a weapon. A light shield's hand can still be carrying objects while the shield is equipped.I will note that you can use a shield as an improvised weapon (damage up to the GM), and in that case, it is a normal improvised weapon. The difference here is that the shield is not being equipped as armor at all, it's just a club or throwing disc that happens to be intended to function as shield.
Of course not all shields have shield bashing. Those shields aren't weapons, because they don't share the same qualities of shields that are weapons. Bucklers and Tower Shields aren't weapons, whereas Light Shields, Heavy Shields, Klars, and Madus, are. Because they're listed in the Weapons table. Do you see Bucklers or Tower Shields in that table? No? Then they're not weapons. It's really that simple.
Masterwork Shields is a case of Specific Trumps General. It still doesn't exclude it from the factor that it has to be a Masterwork Weapon to enhance it as a Magic Weapon, in which the specific text does not change that fact. A Masterwork Shield with a -1 ACP still counts as a Masterwork Weapon for the purposes of enhancements.
Armor check penalties apply because they are more than just weapons, but that doesn't mean that they stop functioning as weapons. Same goes for applying it to attack rolls.
By that argument, Spiked Gauntlets, Cestii, Armor Spikes and other worn offensive items aren't weapons either, are they? What about Barbazu Beards, Boot blades, etc. Are they not weapons because you can't Quick Draw them? Specific mechanics of specific weapons doesn't mean they stop functioning as weapons.
That's a property of a shield functioning as an armor item as well. Shields count as both armor and weapons, and counting as one doesn't mean it stops counting as the other.
Wielded is an ambiguous term whose definition varies based on the context of what's being discussed, which means bringing it up as an argument is pointless. Even so, bucklers aren't weapons you can attack with, and if you attack with a buckler-hand, you lose the buckler benefits (and receive additional penalties). Light Shields don't have that clause, and simply say you can't attack or threaten with weapons held in the same hand that carries a light shield.
You can also use a Greatsword and other renowned weapons as improvised weapons in the same manner as well, and it doesn't mean the weapon stops normally functioning. Same applies to a shield. So I don't understand the relevance of this point.
Could you quote the bit in the CRB that you refer to? All I can find is the statements that when you attack you don't get an ac bonus, and it is a martial weapon when you attack with it.
Sounds like your entire basis for them being weapons is the weapon table. Read the Description of the item, it explains their presence on the weapon table.
No, it isn't. You should read my entire post before coming to that shallow conclusion, just like how I read your entire post, and refuted each point that you made. Weapons Table is part of my argument, yes, but certainly not my entire basis.
Reading the description (which I've done plenty of times) doesn't change the RAI of the shield. There's nothing that discounts shields being weapons in the description anymore than a Greatsword's description would. If anything, the Greatsword's description is less likely to be a weapon than a Shield is, since there's nothing that says what the Greatsword is made out of. I can have Sourbread Greatswords, Candy Cane Greatswords, even Greatswords made out of nothing, and by the RAW, it's still a Greatsword, so suggesting the Shield RAW is wrong would mean that several other descriptions are wrong.
Seriously, if Shields aren't Weapons, then they can't be Magic Weapons, they can't be selected or improved by effects which improve weapons that you wield (such as the Magic Weapon spell, or the Divine Bond class feature), they wouldn't exist in Fighter Weapon Groups, you couldn't Main-hand/Off-hand them, select them for feats like Weapon Focus, and several other subjects that I shouldn't even have to mention.
Could you quote the bit in the CRB that you refer to? All I can find is the statements that when you attack you don't get an ac bonus, and it is a martial weapon when you attack with it.
It's actually in the armor section (ironically enough).
You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. See "shield, heavy" on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
The bolded part is his referral.
So I'm still confused, nothing here makes me think anything other than "shields are weapons."
