A player in my group is interested in creating a Two-Weapon-Fighting character that uses 2 spiked shields.
Would his AC benefit from both shields?
I don't see anything about this in the book, so I'm inclined to believe that he would indeed receive AC bonuses from both shields.
Is there an obscure rule or detail that I'm overlooking?
|
I'm not seeing the benefit of this for the following reasons:
1. Shield bonuses don't stack, so his AC won't be better off for having two shields. Till he gets the proper feats, he won't get any AC bonus when attacking with a shield.
2. Shield attacks are "off-hand" meaning you get 1/2 STR bonus to damage and suffer an attack penalty to all attacks when wielding shields (offset by feats if you go down that line). The penalty is going to depend on the weight of the shield (light are considered "light" weapons, heavy are considered 1-handers).
However, with the RAW, I don't see that you couldn't do this. One, anyone can pick up two shields and begin swinging them. Two, the rules say shield attacks are off-hand, but that applies to the penalties, not your ability to pick up two and go for it. All in all, there isn't really a benefit to this other than the novelty of how it looks (though the toughs at the local adventurers guild will get a good laugh at the sight of a weaponless hero).
|
First of all, as stated earlier the AC bonuses will not stack. He will also need the feats to gain an AC bonus from either shiled while attacking. That being said, I disagree that both shields would be off-hand attacks. I think it would depend on the DM, but I think the off hand reference to shield attacks is with the assumption that the character has a weapon in his primary hand. (hence the sword and board title) I would rule that the first shield is a standard attack, with the second shield being the off hand. I would say the first shield attack would count as an improvised weapon however. I can't say anything official, but I think its a cool idea and would try to make it work for him. Of course, if this is a Society game, I would say no go as I don't think the rules were designed with this in mind and many people would disagree with it, however you decided to rule. Cool idea either way. Let us know if he goes with it and how it plays out.
Only the fact that they are both Shield bonuses and do not stack prevents it.
Ah, yes. Good catch.
All in all, there isn't really a benefit to this other than the novelty of how it looks (though the toughs at the local adventurers guild will get a good laugh at the sight of a weaponless hero).
Yeah, there aren't many benefits. The shields would do less damage than other available weapons. I think it's just for flavor more than anything else.
It is kind of humorous though.
2. Shield attacks are "off-hand" meaning you get 1/2 STR bonus to damage
I remember one of the designers clarifying recently that it is only an off-hand weapon when wielded alongside a primary weapon. In other words, if it is your only weapon, you can deal full Strength damage with it and it is considered your primary hand/weapon.
The rules say offhand only because they assume it is being used as an offhand weapon, not because it is always classified as an offhand weapon no matter what.
You might be interested in checking out our latest release from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming, Strategists & Tacticians, which includes the Two Shield Fighting feat, as well as a host of other new combat feats and maneuvers for your Pathfinder game.
Robert
4WFG
All in all, there isn't really a benefit to this other than the novelty of how it looks (though the toughs at the local adventurers guild will get a good laugh at the sight of a weaponless hero).Yeah, there aren't many benefits. The shields would do less damage than other available weapons. I think it's just for flavor more than anything else.
It is kind of humorous though.
No, it's not just for flavor.
This guy plans to min-max by taking weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc., all with "shield". He will also probably be a fighter with "close" as his first Weapon Training. If he fought with a longsword and shield, he would have to take each of those feats twice, or just take them once with his sword and settle for a crappy shield bash.
That is the whole purpose of this build - it's a way to build a shield-basher without having to waste feats by doubling up on all those feats that require you to pick a weapon.
I will also expect it won't take long before this guy is talking about enchanting his shield with bonuses to raise his AC and enchanting the spike with bonuses to raise his attack/damage - they always do, sooner or later.
Just wanted you to know what you're probably getting into...
A player in my group is interested in creating a Two-Weapon-Fighting character that uses 2 spiked shields.
I hope his adventuring companions would be Bozo the Clown, Roger Rabbit, and Elmer Fudd, because such a goofy/munchkiny cartoon-character idea would be out of place in any group of players who actually take themselves and their characters marginally seriously.
It's silly, it's impractical, and I wish there were outright rules in the book prohibiting even trying to fight like this.
And this has been discussed before. Lots and lots before:
Here is a good one with 201 posts.
I've said it before. I am picking on this idea, not the people discussing it, and it's not a personal attack. I just think stuff like dual-wielding shields should be left for my kids to watch on their Saturday morning cartoons; in my opinion it has no business in a relatively serious game like this.
Creative Director
|
Can anyone supply a real-world example of a two-shield fighting style? I'm honestly curious... (and if someone already supplied one in this thread, that just proves I'm not paying attention) If this is a legitimate real-world fighting style that has a tradition, I'd be a lot less inclined to agree that it's silly. ;-P
|
I've said it before. I am picking on this idea, not the people discussing it, and it's not a personal attack. I just think stuff like dual-wielding shields should be left for my kids to watch on their Saturday morning cartoons; in my opinion it has no business in a relatively serious game like this.
Have you ever watched "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV before? If you saw how the Spartan fought in that you might change your mind, since his shield was the deadlist OFFENSIVE weapon in the match against the ninja (and also the samurai).
|
Creative Director
|
Have you ever watched "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV before? If you saw how the Spartan fought in that you might change your mind, since his shield was the deadlist OFFENSIVE weapon in the match against the ninja (and also the samurai).I've said it before. I am picking on this idea, not the people discussing it, and it's not a personal attack. I just think stuff like dual-wielding shields should be left for my kids to watch on their Saturday morning cartoons; in my opinion it has no business in a relatively serious game like this.
True enough... but he wasn't fighting with two shields, was he?
Have you ever watched "Deadliest Warrior" on Spike TV before? If you saw how the Spartan fought in that you might change your mind, since his shield was the deadlist OFFENSIVE weapon in the match against the ninja (and also the samurai).I've said it before. I am picking on this idea, not the people discussing it, and it's not a personal attack. I just think stuff like dual-wielding shields should be left for my kids to watch on their Saturday morning cartoons; in my opinion it has no business in a relatively serious game like this.
Did anyone actually die in that series? Anyone?
No.
The title is a little misleading. The grounds for "winning" did not include killing the opponent, and the weapons used were not "lethal".
I've said it before (see that thread I linked just a couple posts above this one): No army in the history of warfare went into battle with just shields. If shields were viable as weapons, then those Roman legions would not have bothered euipping each of their soldiers with Scutum, Gladius, and Pilum. That was expensive. Especially if those soldiers could have been equally effective with just their Scutae.
I daresay the success of Rome's legions cannot be disputed, so their tactics must have been quite sound, and they still felt the need to put a gladius and a pilum in every soldier's hands.
They were famous for their "turtle" formation, and while you might think it would be even more effective with 2x as many shields, yet not one Roman soldier was ever equipped with two scutae. At least, we have a great many texts by Roman generals and historians that speak of tactics on the field and none of them, to my knowledge, even hint at such a notion.
And no, I cannot point to every culture that has existed since Adam bit the apple, or since the fish crawled up on the beach (take your pick), but I have never heard of one, not one, ever, that sent their soldiers into battle with just a single shield (assuming it is viable by itself as a weapon) or with two shields (which is even less viable - but I won't repeat myself here since I was quite vocal on this point in that thread I linked).
Can anyone supply a real-world example of a two-shield fighting style? I'm honestly curious... (and if someone already supplied one in this thread, that just proves I'm not paying attention) If this is a legitimate real-world fighting style that has a tradition, I'd be a lot less inclined to agree that it's silly. ;-P
You mean... like that?
or that?;)
Can anyone supply a real-world example of a two-shield fighting style? I'm honestly curious... (and if someone already supplied one in this thread, that just proves I'm not paying attention) If this is a legitimate real-world fighting style that has a tradition, I'd be a lot less inclined to agree that it's silly. ;-PYou mean... like that?
or that?;)
LOL!
Sweet pic!
But, lest anyone misunderstand this and take it as proof of viable two-shield combat, the pic is of a music/dance/perforamnce art group that uses trashcans to perform music on stage.
|
Is it silly? Yes. Can I point to any culture ever that has used two shields like this? Nope.
Does it mean it is not a viable option for a fantasy game? Not at all. After all, I can't point to any one in history ACTUALLY casting fireballs, and lightning bolts either.
So if summoning Eidolons, casting fireballs, morphing into animals is all acceptable, then two shield combat should be acceptable as well.
NOT that I would consider going that route for my own character. But I won't knock a guy for trying something different.
|
|
Can anyone supply a real-world example of a two-shield fighting style? I'm honestly curious... (and if someone already supplied one in this thread, that just proves I'm not paying attention) If this is a legitimate real-world fighting style that has a tradition, I'd be a lot less inclined to agree that it's silly. ;-PYou mean... like that?
or that?;)
LOL!
Sweet pic!
But, lest anyone misunderstand this and take it as proof of viable two-shield combat, the pic is of a music/dance/perforamnce art group that uses trashcans to perform music on stage.
AND they are FREAKING AWESOME!
|
|
True enough... but he wasn't fighting with two shields, was he?
No, he wasn't. The only two cultures *I* know of in history that used shields as an offensive weapon were the Spartans and the Scots. Neither of them used two shields at once (though the Scots occasionally used a shield spike in a manner that would make it seem like a two-handed weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can anyone supply a real-world example of a two-shield fighting style? I'm honestly curious... (and if someone already supplied one in this thread, that just proves I'm not paying attention) If this is a legitimate real-world fighting style that has a tradition, I'd be a lot less inclined to agree that it's silly. ;-P
Just to be the devil's advocate here, I find this remark from a creative director of a fantasy game rather surprising. The whole idea of the game is basically "silly" when it comes down to it. You have spent a horridly ridiculous amount of hours on a product that is "silly" (and I thank you for it, mind you - and I would hope you are mildly insulted that I'd say that). We are talking about an imaginary world with dragons, and people who wiggle their fingers and make things explode, and too many other "silly" things to count. This game is far far cry from a "realistic" simulation, things routinely happen in this "silly" game that can't or don't happen "regularly" in real life. How is someone using two shields to fight any more silly than a person causing an earthquake by strength of will? Where does "silly" actually begin and end here? Two shield fighting is by default more realistic than at least half the core PFRPG book and most of the APs and extras you produce...
For me silly stops when something is practical. I'm sure people thought it was funny that someone used a "sword and dagger" fighting style until they kicked someones behind and it became popular. If a guy came at you with two shield yeah you'd probably laugh, until you got laid out by them - because at that point who is laughing? If someone wants to do something out of the ordinary or "silly" in a "silly" fantasy game, I say let them as long as it is within the rules of the game. I mean we are talking about orcs and elves here...
My stance on the subject has been stated in a few of the threads. I don't think it is possible to just pick up two shields and use them by RAW, however someone in the thread did manage to make a build using the rules for improvised weapons that would make it possible (and thus a main hand attack with a shield instead off hand as stated in the rules).
I guess my annoyance is that you are one of the people involved with the games actual rule set. People can and will use your statements on these boards. Even if "you" (paizo as a whole) won't step up and say the offical ruling on this subject is <insert ruling here>, they are going to point to this thread and say "See here, *he* said it was silly" to back up their argument. And really that just leads to more bickering on the boards and no clear ruling in sight.
I guess I should put it this way, what is more realistic?
A) 2 shield fighting
or
B) Any caster class
Now what is silly again?
I don't mean to be a jerk, it is just food for thought. Like I said, I don't think it works without a huge investment of feats which is not what most people interested in the concept are wanting to hear. But I think it can be made to work and should be a possibility in our "silly" little game. Truthfully if you are trying to play a "realistic" game with this rule set, you're playing the wrong game. Fantasy or make-believe (aka silliness) is a core premise of the system (Magic is involved here). There are many more games with much more realistic design out there if that is what you are truly looking for.
|
|
Eh, this is D&D. Are there any real world armies that used bladed scarves or whips or two-bladed swords or spiked chains or orcish double axes? And then there are the really fun things like mercurial fullblades and talenta boomerangs and stingchucks. (Although I have a weakness for the orcish shotput, since the idea of beaning someone with a thrown cannonball is kinda funny!)
Not so much. But we have rules for them. 'Cause this isn't real-world tactical simulations 101. This is Pathfinder.
Additionally, this is Golarion, where we have both the Shoanti Klar and the Taldan Scissor / Scizore, combining aspects of shield and weapon. The Klar, in particular, would look freaking *HOT* wielded in pairs by a wild-eyed Shoanti barbarian.
The rule-of-cool, in that particular case, would trump any nagging concerns I'd have about 'realistically, they didn't do that, in the real world,' since the real world didn't have Klar or Shoanti or a hell of a lot of military applications of two-weapon fighting, for that matter...
If someone wants to do a two-shield-fu sort of character, and I was already holding my nose and allowing such goobery as the spiked chain or dire flail, I'd be inclined to allow the player some leeway. Some sort of Dual Shielding feat would be needed, and another feat if he wants to be able to shield slam and retain shield AC bonus, but otherwise, I'd be willing to allow it.
I'm far more opposed to a scarf with a razor blade sewn into the hem that does as much damage as a hand axe to the face, and I'd still be inclined to allow that, if a player specifically requested it.
Heck, if a player fresh from reading Michael Reeves 'The Shattered World' or 'The Burning Realm' came up and said he wanted to make a cloakfighter, I'd be willing to work with him on a way to make a man who prances around smacking you with his fluttery cape effective. :)
Sure, there weren't any military forces in the real world that went into battle with a shield strapped to each arm, but there weren't any armies of 'monks' that ran around bare-chested, punching armor-clad knights to death with fists that hit harder than greatswords, either.
We make concessions to what is 'realistic' based on what we want in our games, and while I roll my eyes at the thought of an unarmored 10th level Monk beating the stuffings out of a 5th level Warrior in plate mail with a greatsword using his bare hands (and running faster than the warriors warhorse!), and recognize that medieval armies weren't traditionally equipped with either double weapons, or paired weapons used with two-weapon fighting styles, I accept that this is something that happens in the world of fantasy, especially D&D fantasy.
If 'realism' gets in the way of fun, realism goes out the window. It's just a game, after all.
There are already a ton of 'unrealistic' weapons and options in the game, and I feel confident that I can form my own opinions on which ones are 'too silly' to fit into whatever game I am running.
I am a little befuddled that one would go as far as to intentionally trying to irritate another poster because they feel differently about character's wielding two shields.
Even though it is a fantasy game, it doesn't mean that I have to accept every combination of wielding weapon A alongside weapon B are all equally viable and reasonable. There were those that performed well and others that did not do as well.
While I certainly would allow a warrior that fought with two shields, I believe that having a real-world combat style to draw from is preferable than having not having one. It helps me visualize how my, or another person's character, fights if I can go online, research, and see how they were/are used. I feel that I can get that with people wielding the urumi or two rapiers, but I don't really have that same feeling with things like spiked chain or two shields.
|
Just to chime in on the whole 'magic exists in D&D thus realism doesn't matter' argument, it's called verisimilitude. Despite playing in a fantasy world, everything within the world should vibe with a sense of truth. Certainly, magic defies our realistic world, and when sorcerers and wizards fling magic spells around, we're ok with that. But when it comes to characters with no magic, just warriors, we can say 'hey, that's no different than what we have in our world'. After all, it's not like you have a lot (if any) magical gear at 1st level, so your average 1st level fighter could exist both in our world and Golarion with little to no changes.
So when the designers create weapons or combat styles for these warriors, they can base them off our own. Maybe at higher level they need to throw in some crazier things since magic becomes more available, but for pure mundane weapons and armor, basing them off our own reality is perfectly acceptable.
So, no, I don't think Jame's assertion that using two shields as silly is something to get befuddled with or surprising. Assuming no magic, just two spiked shields that some guy is trying to make effective in combat, it is silly. Magic has no play in it after all, so we're only left with our sense of verisimilitude. I have to agree that I don't think a character using two shield bashes should work very effectively at all, and it is kind of silly.
Although I have to confess I do think two klars would be pretty cool.
Aside from the belief it is silly (which has no business in a discussion other than for a personal game) how is fighting with two shields any different than fighting with two tonfa?
I mean, other than the move set being much easier to master?
|
|
Aside from the belief it is silly (which has no business in a discussion other than for a personal game) how is fighting with two shields any different than fighting with two tonfa?
I mean, other than the move set being much easier to master?
I don't know, but that wasn't my point. All I saw was James saying he thought it was silly, and a couple responses that were shocked a designer think a weapon style was silly because he made a game with magic in it.
But as for the tonfa... I'm not even sure how those compare. I've always maintained that a shield bash was only ever an off-hand attack because it really isn't that effective of a weapon. It has a large surface area, is heavy, and you can't put as much force behind it as a normal weapon like a sword or an axe. The vikings and spartans could sure make it do some damage, but when it came down to it, their axe or spear was the preferred weapon.
A tonfa, well, it looks like a nightstick or a club. I can see someone flipping two of those around. How does it compare to a shield?
But as for the tonfa... I'm not even sure how those compare. I've always maintained that a shield bash was only ever an off-hand attack because it really isn't that effective of a weapon. It has a large surface area, is heavy, and you can't put as much force behind it as a normal weapon like a sword or an axe. The vikings and spartans could sure make it do some damage, but when it came down to it, their axe or spear was the preferred weapon.
A tonfa, well, it looks like a nightstick or a club. I can see someone flipping two of those around. How does it compare to a shield?
The shield doesn't have to be swung with the flat side as the contact point. In fact, the shield is far deadlier if swung with the edge being the contact point.
As for the tonfa, typically (except when attacking) they are held on the t-bar with the long end of the shaft along the forearm, so they can be used to deflect strikes. Very much like a shield without a lot of surface area.
|
|
I suppose my main thinking the tonfa is just fine is because of that lack of surface area. Sure you can swing the shield at an angle, but it's still a big heavy thing. A heavy steel shield weighs 15 lbs., about twice as much as a greatsword (and that's in two-hands)! Heck, even a light wooden shield is still 5 lbs. There is a reason those things need to be strapped on after all, they're big, clunky, and are meant to block, not as much to attack.
The tonfa, on the other hand, can be spun around, is light, and seems much easier to use as a weapon with the blocking as a side benefit (much like the scizore from Adventurer's Armory).
As for the tonfa, typically (except when attacking) they are held on the t-bar with the long end of the shaft along the forearm, so they can be used to deflect strikes. Very much like a shield without a lot of surface area.
Precisely.
The lack of surface area making this all possible, and the method of deployment being nothing like a shield.
That was more like boxing gloves
He still blocked the grenade with one. And honestly, it looked just like a shield to me, with handle and everything.
That was more like boxing gloves
And for all his awesome stats couldn't even kill a dude with no armour :p
|
|
And for all his awesome stats couldn't even kill a dude with no armour :pHe still blocked the grenade with one. And honestly, it looked just like a shield to me, with handle and everything.
That was more like boxing gloves
Dude was part troll, he was just a barbarian without magic weapons! Sides, he took the bastards head off in the comic...
Aside from the belief it is silly (which has no business in a discussion other than for a personal game) how is fighting with two shields any different than fighting with two tonfa?
I mean, other than the move set being much easier to master?
Off the top of my head:
Shields are big. They get in the way of your vision. Tonfa don't. Trained medieval fighters learned to use their opponent's shields against them - swing high to get them to raise the shield, then quickly duck down and move laterally to where the shield blocks the opponent's view of you. In the moment it takes him to figure out where you are, you can take your shot. Kneecap him, or hook around the shield into his flank.
Shields are big. They get in the way of your vision. As you move them to strike your foe, he is moving also. You're adjusting the strike to compensate - inches matter. With a big shield limiting your view of the exact location you are trying to strike, it's hard to be accurate. This is not a problem with the little tonfa.
Shields are massive. They weigh quite a bit. Your phyiscs instructor probably taught you about inertial mass, right? It takes longer to move your shield from a guard position into someone's face than it takes you to move your tonfa from a guard position into their face, no matter how strong you are (if you're stronger, you execute both attacks a little faster, but the sheild is still slower than the tonfa).
Shields have very short range. Only a few inches past your knuckles for most shields, some have less than that. The tonfa I own have 11.5 inches past the handle, giving the more reach than a shield. This makes more targets on your foe's body available, like knees for example, forcing him to protect a larger area.
Tonfa are light. In the hands of a trained master, they can strike hard, but not as hard as a massive shield. In the unlikely event that you hit with a shield (big, slow, limited vision), it will do more damage and be more likely to affect your foe's balance and position. When you hit (quite likely if you know what you're doing) with a tonfa, you probably won't do as much damage and certainly won't affect your foe's balance and position.
Tonfa suck at blocking ranged attacks. Shields are built for this and they excel at it.
i don't think its silly if thats what the player WANTS to do.
i had a player fight with 2 spiked bucklers before,though they weren't exactly spiked buklers.
i'm not sure what there called but there actually IS a real world ninja item that is used on both arms. they cover the back of the forarms as a metal plate and have reverse blades pointing towards the elbow. there spikes are sharpened on the outside as razor blades. they can be used to secure a brace when hand spikes are impracticable(digging into a tree,catching yourself from sliding off a roof,etc). they can also be used to slice(cutting a rope,cutting a curtain,defending yourself if caught unarmed).where do you think shredder from TMNT got his inspiration? finally they can also be used to defend atacks via the metal plating and is actually the ninjas "shield" when needed quickly. Since there's no actual item in PF its easier to say this is in all sense a spiked buckler. So in theory in the real world im sure there was some ninja surprised by there target going to the bathroom and drum role... "killed the guy with his 2 shields" :P
thats what my player fought with but if your player wants to bash guys with his 2 shields and have bards sing his songs thats should be completely left up to the player...
I suppose my main thinking the tonfa is just fine is because of that lack of surface area. Sure you can swing the shield at an angle, but it's still a big heavy thing. A heavy steel shield weighs 15 lbs., about twice as much as a greatsword (and that's in two-hands)! Heck, even a light wooden shield is still 5 lbs. There is a reason those things need to be strapped on after all, they're big, clunky, and are meant to block, not as much to attack.
The tonfa, on the other hand, can be spun around, is light, and seems much easier to use as a weapon with the blocking as a side benefit (much like the scizore from Adventurer's Armory).
Ahh. So because the tonfa is light, that is why it is an effective weapon?
Fine, then wield two bucklers. Oh yeah. The rules assume the buckler can't be an effective weapon for some reason, despite weighing as much as a light shield (for some reason). It is a good thing that Pathfinder has verisimilitude as such a high priority.
Shields are big. They get in the way of your vision. Tonfa don't. Trained medieval fighters learned to use their opponent's shields against them - swing high to get them to raise the shield, then quickly duck down and move laterally to where the shield blocks the opponent's view of you. In the moment it takes him to figure out where you are, you can take your shot. Kneecap him, or hook around the shield into his flank.
Shields are big. They get in the way of your vision. As you move them to strike your foe, he is moving also. You're adjusting the strike to compensate - inches matter. With a big shield limiting your view of the exact location you are trying to strike, it's hard to be accurate. This is not a problem with the little tonfa.
Shields are massive. They weigh quite a bit. Your phyiscs instructor probably taught you about inertial mass, right? It takes longer to move your shield from a guard position into someone's face than it takes you to move your tonfa from a guard position into their face, no matter how strong you are (if you're stronger, you execute both attacks a little faster, but the sheild is still slower than the tonfa).
Shields have very short range. Only a few inches past your knuckles for most shields, some have less than that. The tonfa I own have 11.5 inches past the handle, giving the more reach than a shield. This makes more targets on your foe's body available, like knees for example, forcing him to protect a larger area.
Aside from the disparity between "shields are big and/or massive" and still don't have much range past your hand - (how does that happen anyway? Poor weaponsmiths making seriously off balanced shields that extend two feet past your elbow if your arm is bent?) - it must be a good thing d20/Pathfinder takes vision into account. I like the rules covering helmets restricting vision after all.
Fine, then wield two bucklers.
Be our guest.
The reasons a buckler isnt much of a weapon is pretty obvious due to its design and placement.
The Tonfa isn't a good weaopn because its light, it's because of a range of reasons. Comparing a tonfa to a shield is like comparing a cat to a dog.
RL example - here
Fine, then wield two bucklers.Be our guest.
The reasons a buckler isnt much of a weapon is pretty obvious due to its design and placement.
Which still bugs me as it doesn't represent an actual buckler at all.
The buckler was a punching shield and was very offensive in use. The thing that is called a buckler in 3.x and pathfinder bears little to no resemblance to the actual thing.
There was a weapon introduced for Dark Sun in, I think, an old Dragon magazine. They were called tortoise blades. If I remember correctly they were essentially dual wielded bucklers with short swords attached and each one added a +1 to AC.
their is a big difference between something being silly to do and something being imposable to do, just because you cant see it being easy doesn't mean every one feels the same way.
i love the idea of a dwarven fighter in full-plate dual wielding heavy steal shields.
Just to chime in on the whole 'magic exists in D&D thus realism doesn't matter' argument, it's called verisimilitude. Despite playing in a fantasy world, everything within the world should vibe with a sense of truth. Certainly, magic defies our realistic world, and when sorcerers and wizards fling magic spells around, we're ok with that. But when it comes to characters with no magic, just warriors, we can say 'hey, that's no different than what we have in our world'. After all, it's not like you have a lot (if any) magical gear at 1st level, so your average 1st level fighter could exist both in our world and Golarion with little to no changes.
Except these characters aren't without magic, it is an essential part of most characters lives. Magic is available and even part of some races backgrounds (elves, one of the most magical races of all?), just because a character class has no use of magic of their own does not mean they have never experienced or used magic. Magic could have easily been included in training, to improve the quality of said training and allowed for training of abilities or styles that are not commonly used or thought to be effective. We won't even go into the fact that the game has ways to reduce weight (mundane even, look up special materials for weapons and armor) or make things more easily wielded (a certain old school weapon anyone? Hint: Sun). Core magic allows for almost everything you could want in the game to be possible, epic magic/divine ranks allows just about everything else. If a rule has been "broken", my money is on "magic" that did the breaking. Yet that somehow doesn't break this verisimilitude?
So when the designers create weapons or combat styles for these warriors, they can base them off our own. Maybe at higher level they need to throw in some crazier things since magic becomes more available, but for pure mundane weapons and armor, basing them off our own reality is perfectly acceptable.
Many of these "fighting styles" are in effect nothing more than tossing two weapons someone thought would be neat looking and making rules and feats to do it within the game rules. As it would be possible to use two shields in reality this particular argument fails to make any real sense, again I'm not saying it should be easy (and in game rules this would convert to a large expenditure of feats to pull off effectively - which happens to be the case). It isn't like it is a "new" idea, there has even rules for it already, published rules. Just because it isn't a "mainstream" concept doesn't break your precious verisimilitude any more than the magic does already out of the book.
So, no, I don't think Jame's assertion that using two shields as silly is something to get befuddled with or surprising. Assuming no magic, just two spiked shields that some guy is trying to make effective in combat, it is silly. Magic has no play in it after all, so we're only left with our sense of verisimilitude. I have to agree that I don't think a character using two shield bashes should work very effectively at all, and it is kind of silly.
It is no more "silly" than the idea an unarmed person could effectively win a fight against a fully armored and trained opponent. That happens to be a regular occurrence in any game involving a monk. That is a bigger break of your verisimilitude than a person using two pieces of wood/metal to bash your brains in. Again it doesn't work very well unless you invest a large number of feats to do it, go look at the build. The sheer number of feats involved in effect means the character "trained" to do this outlandish thing. I mean more feats than the most difficult to qualify for PrC's require.
Silly is a point of view, a perspective. To help you envision this, imagine the "coolest" thing ever. Now imagine the people you look up to and opinions matter to you tell you it is stupid and silly. You did that? Good, you are now the 2 shield fighter... How do you really feel about the situation now?
The reasons a buckler isnt much of a weapon is pretty obvious due to its design and placement.
Except it isn't obivious, a case can be made for either side and the rules are so "loose" that it is pretty much an arbitrary call on what
is and isn't "effective". The rules for the game are made in such a way that someones vision, someones "take" on a subject is what is made reality. It doesn't matter if that "take" is wrong logisitically or historically, it was published that way so it is by RAW (which some of us are required to play by).
The Tonfa isn't a good weaopn because its light, it's because of a range of reasons. Comparing a tonfa to a shield is like comparing a cat to a dog
Don't get me started on the "range/reach" rules. Again, we'll leave it at somewhat arbitrary, though I understand what was done and the premise behind it.
As for it being a "good weapon", the practical definition of a good weapon is one that allows me to beat on your repeatedly and not break. A tonfa is no different than a club for most intents and purposes in game, not all clubs are "cave man clubs" - big honking things. Good is relative, when you get beat by someone with a "bad" weapon it is no longer a "bad" weapon it has become a "good" weapon, you lost to it.
Don't get me started on the "range/reach" rules. Again, we'll leave it at somewhat arbitrary, though I understand what was done and the premise behind it.
I didn't :p
Didn't even mention it!
|
|
This carries me back to the old thread on the even more powerful shield style: two-handed. Basically getting the max of power attack / strength bonus from the Shield while getting a shield bonus. The fact that these shield techniques are not only viable in Pathfinder but actually REALLY good (basically making an old school "floating shield") seems a bit silly. Shields should NOT be one of the best weapons in the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Well, cheesy or not, one of my players wanted it so I made it. He springs about on Winged boots of Striding and Springing, waving two shields with serrated edges and spikes. I started with the Armadillo class someone on the Wizards boards made years ago, but it was way too powerful for my game. The key is the Improved Shield Bash feat (PHB 3.5) letting him bash and keep the shield bonus. This is the current incarnation.
Having seen how this issue polarizes people... Please don't tell me how stoopid it is, that's between me and my players. We have a high-fantasy, manga/cinematic game going on and we're having fun. That the whole thing is built on a flimsy, house ruled basis is equally clear to me. I'm totally open to constructive criticism about how the class works, just not about whether it should be allowed to exist.
THE ARMADILLO Mark 2
Hit Die: d10.
Requirements To qualify to become an armadillo, a character must fulfill all the following criteria:
Base Attack Bonus: +5.
Feats: Shield Proficiency, all Armor Proficiencies, Improved Shield Bash and either Two-Weapon Fighting or Agile Shield Fighter.
Class Skills
The armadillo's class skills (and the key ability for each) are Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Ride (Dex), and Swim (Str). Skill Points per level: 2 + Int mod.
Saves: Fort good, Reflex & Will Poor
BAB: Full
Class Abilities:
1 Armadillo defense (+1), fighter training
2 Exceptional shield fighter
3 Armadillo defense (+2)
4 Shield Ward
5 Armadillo defense (+3)
6 Shielded evasion
7 Shield mastery I
8 Armadillo defense (+4)
9 Shield mastery II
10 Armadillo defense (+5)
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: An armadillo is proficient with armor and shield spikes, with all types of armor (heavy, medium, and light), and with shields (including tower shields).
Armadillo Defense (Ex): An armadillo is highly trained at defense, gaining the ability to put a second shield to good use. When fighting with a shield in each hand, an armadillo adds 1 point of shield bonus from his off-hand shield to the bonus granted by his primary shield. This increases to a possible +5 at 10th level. For example a 5th-level fighter/3rd-level armadillo who was wielding a +1 heavy steel shield and a +1 light steel shield would gain 2 points of shield bonus from his off-hand shield, giving him a +5 shield bonus to AC.
This class feature does not grant the armadillo the ability to stack multiple shield bonuses. He is effectively increasing the bonus from one of his shields so that he still only has one shield bonus to AC.
Fighter Training: Levels in the armadillo class are considered to be fighter levels for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites when the object of that feat is either a shield or a spiked shield. For example, a 5th-level fighter/3rd-level armadillo would qualify for the feat Greater Weapon Focus (spiked heavy shield).
Exceptional Shield Fighter (Ex): At 2nd level, the armadillo can also make a second attack with an off-hand shield during the full attack action. This takes the usual -5 penalty on top of the -2 for two-weapon fighting. For an attack bonus of +10 the full attack would be +8/+8/+3/+3.
Shield Ward: At 4th level, the armadillo gains Shield Ward as a bonus feat, even if he does not meet the prerequisites. The bonus does not apply to ranged touch attacks.
"You apply your shield bonus to your (melee) touch AC, and on checks or rolls to resist bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, or trip attempts against you." Also, once in grapple, the feat no longer increases the grapple checks. It only helps by your initial attempt to keep those tentacles at bay.
Shielded Evasion (Ex): At 6th level, the armadillo gains the benefits of evasion. This ability only functions when the armadillo is wielding at least one heavy shield.
Shield Mastery (Ex): At 7th and 9th level, the armadillo's skill at fighting with two shields really comes into fruition. He gains access to two special tactical maneuvers, described below. He may choose which he takes at 7th and receives the other at 9th level.
Cannonball: When you use the charge action while fighting with two shields, you may also make a secondary attack with your off-hand shield. Each attack deals extra damage equal to your Strength bonus (minimum +1). Each of these attacks suffers a –2 penalty as normal for fighting with two weapons.
Armadillo's Guard: While fighting with two shields, instead of using the total defense action you can use Armadillo’s Guard as a full round action. You may not move more than 5 feet, but you gain a dodge bonus to AC equal to your shield bonus to AC. This replaces the +4 dodge bonus granted by the total defense action (+6 with 5 ranks in Tumble). You can’t combine Armadillo’s Guard with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using Armadillo’s Guard.