I had a character in Runelords who had two Klars (though didn't fight with both). I allowed the base shield bonuses to stack (no stacking enhancement bonuses), when not attacking with one. Improved Shield Bash (or whatever feat it is) would allow keeping both all the time.
For two-weapon fighting with shields, I think I'd allow the same, except never allow *both* shields to continue to stack on AC when attacking - just the one due to that feat.
So walking around, or single attacking with the feat, base shield stacks. It would be gravy for someone wanting to do it anyways, but I can't see it hurting things that much.
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.
IT really is and should be, however it's certainly shouldn't be one of the only viable weapons in the game, and using as a great weapon takes more feats than using any other weapon in the game. I feel the fact that it takes the two weapon feat chain and another 3~5 feats to actually use the shield to maximum potential isn't so insane.
Yes if you super focus in the shield and you take all the feats you can for it, and you get special equipment it's a great weapon... but that's not joe blow fighter picking it up and just going to town with it -- it's a super dedicated build that eats up a substantial number of even the fighter's feats and is almost impossible to do with any other class.
You need at Minimum:
2 two weapon fighting feats
3 shield feats
and should really take:
4 two weapon fighting feats
3 shield fighting feats
3 feats for the bull rush
2 feats for increasing shield AC
Not counting the weapon focus/greater weapon focus/weapon specialization/ greater weapon specialization.
Even then without investing a large amount of gold into the shield you're not going to get more than average off hand damage out of it.
*Side note: Was that two weapon fighting build the one that used the weapon swap feat from the alpha and beta playtests? Because that was a fun/funny build.
As for the "cheesy to do this because they only have to spend feats on the weapons once" Hello it's called a double weapon! I mean really instead of wasting 3 extra feats on using the shield they could simply take exotic weapon proficiency two bladed sword (two longswords that count as an one handed and light weapon for two weapon fighting) or the meteor hammer... that's an insane weapon.
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...
Did you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven? In that movie the main character, while practically naked, killed three heavily armed and armored knights in a most realistic fashion.
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.
Yeah, this particular player is definitely a min-maxer, and somewhat of a munchkin too.
But, I try to at least consider his ideas before I totally shoot them down.This is his reasoning for the two-spiked shields
1) Min-Maxing (though he's obviously overlooking much more powerful builds)
2)He wants to be spiky. Spiked armor, spiked shields, boots with toe blades, etc. He wants to be a giant pincushion.
3) I think he also wants to be something of a "Defender", so the idea of TWO shields appeals to him.
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.
Yeah, this particular player is definitely a min-maxer, and somewhat of a munchkin too.
But, I try to at least consider his ideas before I totally shoot them down.This is his reasoning for the two-spiked shields
1) Min-Maxing (though he's obviously overlooking much more powerful builds)
2)He wants to be spiky. Spiked armor, spiked shields, boots with toe blades, etc. He wants to be a giant pincushion.
3) I think he also wants to be something of a "Defender", so the idea of TWO shields appeals to him.
Hah, not at all surprised.
The RAW supports everything he wants to do, but Shield bonuses don't stack, so using two shields to be a "Defender" is no more effective than using one shield to do the same thing.
Other than that, it's all good.
Have him read Hyperion (if he hasn't already). There is a really devastating spikey guy in there, an main character throughout the whole book. Spikey to the point of going beyond "pincushion".
The fighter is the best option to go with for purposes of dual wielding shields this is the feats I chose for my dwarves fighter who also dual wields shields
p.s. in order to truly pull it off you need to be 11th level.
1. Two weapon fighting
1. Shield Focus
2. Double Slice
3. Improved Shield Bash
4. Weapon Focus (Heavy Shield)
5. Shield Slam
6. Improved Two weapon fighting
7. Power Attack
8. Improved Bull Rush
9. Weapon Specialization (heavy Shield)
10. Greater Weapon Focus (heavy Shield)
11. Shield Mastery.
Depending on interpretations this is one of the most powerful builds out there, in my games this leads to no penalty to attack rolls with dual wielding shields and with a spiked shield enhanced with the bashing property you are doing 2d6 damage.
|
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...Did you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven? In that movie the main character, while practically naked, killed three heavily armed and armored knights in a most realistic fashion.
Yes I have...and no, no he did not. Movies hardly ever do anything in a realistic fashion and kingdom of heaven isn't an exception. Then again I actually study the combat system that liam bastdizes for the movie so I maybe somewhat overly critical of the movie.
And on topic...I have fought with two greatswords and two bucklers before. It was a HORRIBLE fighting style, but it made noobies utterly terrified of me. Fighting with two spiked buckler or small shields isn't actually too bad. Using two maudi is actually quite effective. And using two shielded katars is just mean.
Yes I have...and no, no he did not. Movies hardly ever do anything in a realistic fashion and kingdom of heaven isn't an exception.
You can't say something like that and expect people to believe it without at least putting forward some kind of support. I watched the scene and, though it was unlikely, it nevertheless seemed perfectly plausible.
EDIT: I just watched the scene again and I realize that my initial statement wasn't completely accurate. He did manage to get a weapon from one of his attackers for use in defending against the third knight (though he could just as readily have used a sturdy stick from the ground to catch the flail).
All the rest was unarmed attacks, improvised weapons, disarms and trips, as well as using the enemy's weapons against them.
I'd allow a character to wield two shields at the same time. However, there are a couple issues, rule-wise:
- Equipping the second shield would be difficult, since the hand of the other arm would be taken. That and the TWF penalty imply that the off-hand shield will be Light.
- The above statement, mixed with the fact that the Weapon Focus tree specifies a single weapon, imply that the main-hand shield will probably be Light as well.
- Shield AC bonuses don't stack. However, nothing prevents you from having a +5 shield in one hand, and a +1 Bashing Slick shield of Heavy Fortification or whatever in your other hand.
- The RAW say a shield attack is made with the off-hand. A house-rule is needed so that this character can attack with a shield in his main hand.
there is no need for a house rule for the shields being off hand, the only reason that they make the point to say that they are off hand is in regards to your str being added to the damage and the fact that it counts as a light weapon for two weapon fighting penalties.
the feat double slice removes the off hand penalty for your str and the feat shield mastery will remove all penalties for dual wielding shields.
|
|
Yes I have...and no, no he did not. Movies hardly ever do anything in a realistic fashion and kingdom of heaven isn't an exception.You can't say something like that and expect people to believe it without at least putting forward some kind of support. I watched the scene and, though it was unlikely, it nevertheless seemed perfectly plausible.
EDIT: I just watched the scene again and I realize that my initial statement wasn't completely accurate. He did manage to get a weapon from one of his attackers for use in defending against the third knight (though he could just as readily have used a sturdy stick from the ground to catch the flail).
All the rest was unarmed attacks, improvised weapons, disarms and trips, as well as using the enemy's weapons against them.
Okay, the first knight who attacks stops his swing in mid swing and opens his shield to allow Orlando to start to pommel him with a rock. And he is stupid enough to allow a rock to a full helm to actually stop him from retaliating. Then the second knight gets pommeled and killed by a piece of pottery that seems to be stronger then steel. Oralndo then gets whacked in the back of the head with a flail from a guy on horseback and somehow manages to not die...in fact he just shrugs it off. The first knight gets killed off..well that part was fine. The last knight gets OFF his horse (WTF?!?) to fight. At the end, he decides to punch Orlando instead of using the dagger he has athis belt so Oralndo can use it against him. Yeah...I'm call BS.
there is no need for a house rule for the shields being off hand
Oh yes there is, yes there is. In that other thread that I linked above, manym many players chimed in with a nearly-unanimous shout that the laws of Pathfinder physics make it such that a man can easily do a thing with his weak off-hand but it is impossible for this man to do the same thing with his strong primary-hand. Completely impossible.
The masses even voiced the opinion that a man with no weapons at all who stumbles into a battlefield can pick up a shield with his off-hand and bash enemies with it, but the laws of Pathfinder physices will smite him down if, instead, he even attempts to pick up that shield with his primary hand and bash enemies.
Really, go follow that link and read the overwhelming arguments against primary-hand shield bashing.
The masses have spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.
Here's the link again for your reading enjoyment.
|
|
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...Did you ever see the movie Kingdom of Heaven? In that movie the main character, while practically naked, killed three heavily armed and armored knights in a most realistic fashion.
ummm movie... as realistic as playing D&D...
CAN it happen... sure... but pointing to fantasy to support fantasy as reality seems a bit of a stretch.
|
|
there is no need for a house rule for the shields being off handOh yes there is, yes there is. In that other thread that I linked above, manym many players chimed in with a nearly-unanimous shout that the laws of Pathfinder physics make it such that a man can easily do a thing with his weak off-hand but it is impossible for this man to do the same thing with his strong primary-hand. Completely impossible.
The masses even voiced the opinion that a man with no weapons at all who stumbles into a battlefield can pick up a shield with his off-hand and bash enemies with it, but the laws of Pathfinder physices will smite him down if, instead, he even attempts to pick up that shield with his primary hand and bash enemies.
Really, go follow that link and read the overwhelming arguments against primary-hand shield bashing.
The masses have spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done.
Here's the link again for your reading enjoyment.
sorry but 99% of the time the masses are stupid and should be ignored completely as total idiots. Rules-lawyers are the climax of this. No imagination at all.
This is, after all, a game about imagination and storytelling. Now while I would NOT refer to a movie to support real life unarmed combatants beating fully armored knights, I WOULD look to the same movie for D&D inspiration. Verisimilitude is all fine and dandy, except for Ability scores, skill ranks, feats, classes to begin with, race choices, fantastic weapons, magical gear, etc. Whatever floats your boat I suppose. I mean if you can't visualize a fighter wielding two shields without looking it up on the net, can you visualize a fighter using a bladed whip, or a brilliant energy axe, or even using a longsword and short sword without FIRST looking it up? REALLY? Verisimilitude again, in real life "magic" I don't know many schools of thought that says you loose a spell after you cast it (comes from literature which is NOT real life)... darn whole magic system is unrealistic then... has to be redone from scratch now!
Frankly anyone that has ever played a demi-human, or a spell caster really should not be looking for any verisimilitude in their game. Real life is thrown right out the window at all levels as soon as you say "I am an elven sorcerer..." Okay... whatever dude, you smoke your crack and I'll call the funny farm people to wrap you up... freaking nut case!
EVERY thing about our hobby is silly and unrealistic. To knock someone for wanting to do something unusual like wield two shields, is like knocking someone cause he wants to play an elf (I mean really an ELF!?!?)At least this guy has some imagination!
And for getting annoyed with it later because it is suboptimal... what a shield is a d6 vs a longsword's d8... so what an average of one point difference in damage... I doubt anyone will care... and when he adds vorpal to his shield, THAT will be freakin AWESOME! or flaming, or whatever!
Sorry but knocking something that is just cool, because it is different is just uncool... let's ALL play using longswords and shields and no other options cause everyone is comfortable with that... don't want to make anyone uncomfortable now do we...
Sorry for the long tirade, but the knocks on this concept is just ridiculous. The game is about FUN! nothing else... just FUN! don't like fun... okay, whatever... why are you roleplaying then?
Just to weigh in...
Two bucklers (bladed, spiked or otherwise): Sure, why not? Its essentially just a form of bracer based weaponry.
Two medium, large or full sized shields: Errr... are you daft? Unless the character in question has a completely different anatomy for a human (different shoulder sockets and way different shoulder width) this would cause more interference then assistance.
Just tell the player NO.
Why? Because they are being a silly munchkin and giving you a head ache. Then again, I'm assuming this is also the type of player that would try to dual-wield lances, great swords and other such non-sense.
Okay, the first knight who attacks stops his swing in mid swing and opens his shield to allow Orlando to start to pommel him with a rock. And he is stupid enough to allow a rock to a full helm to actually stop him from retaliating. Then the second knight gets pommeled and killed by a piece of pottery that seems to be stronger then steel. Oralndo then gets whacked in the back of the head with a flail from a guy on horseback and somehow manages to not die...in fact he just shrugs it off. The first knight gets killed off..well that part was fine. The last knight gets OFF his horse (WTF?!?) to fight. At the end, he decides to punch Orlando instead of using the dagger he has athis belt so Oralndo can use it against him. Yeah...I'm call BS.
Helmet or not, a large rock to the face can and will disorient/stun you. Furthermore, repeated poundings as shown in the video could easily drive someone backwards.
The pottery doesn't have to be stronger than steel, just heavy/thick enough to not shatter upon contact with the armor. As large as it was, the impacts were certainly felt (though not likely too meaningful as anything more than a distraction).
Orlando didn't get wacked in the head by a flail at any point. He spun one of the knights around who took the blow in his stead (a later flailing attempt missed completely as he ducked under it). The only things Orlando got hit by during the fight was (1) a shield, (2) a gauntlet, and (3) a headbutt. As shown, this was enough to seriously mess his day up. After killing all three knights, he lost consciousness and had to be rescued by a friend (otherwise he likely would have died).
The first knight was killed by a flail to the head. The second knight was killed by having his throat curb stomped, and the third knight got stabbed in the face by his own dagger.
|
The first knight was killed by a flail to the head. The second knight was killed by having his throat curb stomped, and the third knight got stabbed in the face by his own dagger.
I must say that this conversation is making me happy that I fell asleep during the first 20 minutes of that movie every time I tried to watch it.
No the shields do not stack.
|
|
Okay, the first knight who attacks stops his swing in mid swing and opens his shield to allow Orlando to start to pommel him with a rock. And he is stupid enough to allow a rock to a full helm to actually stop him from retaliating. Then the second knight gets pommeled and killed by a piece of pottery that seems to be stronger then steel. Oralndo then gets whacked in the back of the head with a flail from a guy on horseback and somehow manages to not die...in fact he just shrugs it off. The first knight gets killed off..well that part was fine. The last knight gets OFF his horse (WTF?!?) to fight. At the end, he decides to punch Orlando instead of using the dagger he has athis belt so Oralndo can use it against him. Yeah...I'm call BS.Helmet or not, a large rock to the face can and will disorient/stun you. Furthermore, repeated poundings as shown in the video could easily drive someone backwards.
The pottery doesn't have to be stronger than steel, just heavy/thick enough to not shatter upon contact with the armor. As large as it was, the impacts were certainly felt (though not likely too meaningful as anything more than a distraction).
Orlando didn't get wacked in the head by a flail at any point. He spun one of the knights around who took the blow in his stead (a later flailing attempt missed completely as he ducked under it). The only things Orlando got hit by during the fight was (1) a shield, (2) a gauntlet, and (3) a headbutt. As shown, this was enough to seriously mess his day up. After killing all three knights, he lost consciousness and had to be rescued by a friend (otherwise he likely would have died).
The first knight was killed by a flail to the head. The second knight was killed by having his throat curb stomped, and the third knight got stabbed in the face by his own dagger.
You COULD get disoriented if the rock is pommeling the right spot. I have fought in sugerloaf helms...the forhead is NOT the right spot. Back of the head, and temples...yeah it COULD happen. But where Orlando was hitting, it would have been nigh useless barring extraordinary luck...aka movie BS.
The pottery CUT through the armor. You see sprays of blood. That means it IS stronger the steel according to that fight. Even barring that, those pottery pieces, even ones that thick would have shattered on first strike.
The second flail DID hit. You see him reacting to it, not just him dodging.
And that completely ignores the idocy of the various fighters that even let any of this happen...leaving oneself wide open, getting off their horse, not using their dagger to finih orlando off. It is utter hollywood rubbish.
the rules are not written by the masses its written by the creators and your dm's, i pointed out why they refer to the shields as off hand, this has nothing to do with the idea that you cant use it in your main hand.
Given, many of the posts mention trying to fight with TWO SHIELDS, but lets look at it the other way.
What if you have a player trying to stay alive at all costs and picks up TWO SHIELDS, maybe from fallen comrad or villan, and declares he wants to fight total defensively, would you allow both shields to be utilized in this fashion only to maximize his AC for survival?
See above:
Two medium, large or full sized shields: Errr... are you daft? Unless the character in question has a completely different anatomy for a human (different shoulder sockets and way different shoulder width) this would cause more interference then assistance.
i think i would have to disagree with this statement, i don't see any physical problem with using two shields but if we all agreed all the time these threads would be really short.
if this is how you feel then you can house rule that you cant dual wield shields, you have that option as a DM.
Given, many of the posts mention trying to fight with TWO SHIELDS, but lets look at it the other way.
What if you have a player trying to stay alive at all costs and picks up TWO SHIELDS, maybe from fallen comrad or villan, and declares he wants to fight total defensively, would you allow both shields to be utilized in this fashion only to maximize his AC for survival?
Of course. As long as the player was mature enough to understand the difference between "one off" events and "precedents."
There are real world shields that could be used easily TWF.
They are called handshields and were often used as a more agressive defense rather than just waiting to block since they are smaller.
They also were used to supplement a punch by a wielder.
Got laughed at when I first brought it out in the fencing club I used to fight in, until I started knocking their weapons wide with it.
The shield is a small dome just big enough for the hand to fit in there gripping a bar across the inside. The dome faces out, instead of to the side (much like the STOMP examples from earlier in the discussion). Finally there is an inch wide lip around the edge of the dome for additional protection.
long description of a buckler
Also known as a buckler.
You COULD get disoriented if the rock is pommeling the right spot. I have fought in sugerloaf helms...the forhead is NOT the right spot. Back of the head, and temples...yeah it COULD happen. But where Orlando was hitting, it would have been nigh useless barring extraordinary luck...aka movie BS.
The pottery CUT through the armor. You see sprays of blood. That means it IS stronger the steel according to that fight. Even barring that, those pottery pieces, even ones that thick would have shattered on first strike.
The second flail DID hit. You see him reacting to it, not just him dodging.
And that completely ignores the idocy of the various fighters that even let any of this happen...leaving oneself wide open, getting off their horse, not using their dagger to finih orlando off. It is utter hollywood rubbish.
*analyzes the video some more*
I think the rock was hitting a little lower than you say, generally around the face around the upper cheeks and nose area (with one or two swings hitting the side of the head near the temple).
I checked the clay pot scene, and I think that is clods of dirt being thrown up rather than splashes of blood. Whatever it is, it looks as though it is being thrown up from BEHIND Orlando rather then from his front (which is where it would come from if it were the knight's blood).
I think you might be right about the flail hitting him after all which, as you said, would be absurd in that it would have killed him outright (especially after it took out a helmeted knight). You are correct in his reaction to it, though with the dust being thrown up in those short frames you don't actually see the flail connect. The only thing I can think of in explanation is that it was a narrow miss (catching his hair perhaps?) with which he rolled with to avoid getting killed.
But it's off topic here, so I am going to start a new thread in which I ask people to duplicate the video using the rules. We can continue to discuss the realism of the clip there if you'd like. :)
I agree that it is the same as a small 6 inch buckler, but in D&D parlance, a buckler is the larger version (normally) and doesn't have any damage to its attack. All I am doing is trying to distinguish the one I am describing from what is in Pathfinder. Most people just think of a buckler as a tiny shield.
|
Not to add anything constructive to the post, but the two shield fighter might want to take a look at the Complete Warrior, pg. 154 (assuming 3.5 material is allowed in game). The Dwarven Buckler-axe (slashing) and gnome tortoise blade (piercing) are both shields with decent damage potential. You don't even need an exotic weapon feat if you are the correct race (dwarf or gnome, respectively).
I will admit a few years back that I played a dwarf who wielded a dwarven buckler-axe on each arm. It was fun thematically, and made a cool visual (think of a heavily armored dwarven fighter charging with, effectively, a two-headed axe blade strapped to each arm). Okay, it did panic an evil treant. :-)
Min/max wise it didn't mesh well with 3.5 rules, though I suspect Pathfinder might be a bit more effective, especially with the new shield feats. Still, fun character.
Your mileage may vary. Do not taunt happy fun ball.
|
As a rules-lawyer, I point out that dual-wielding shields doesn't work in-game.
As a meta-rules rules lawyer, I point out that various abilities are balanced to a certain extent. Dual wielding shields is certainly something you can add to the game. Heck, it shouldn't be that hard. But it's something that needs to be done in balance with the existing rules.
For example, dual wielding shields should have penalties that equal the bonuses.
To start, limit the shields he can dual wield. No dual wielding tower shields.
If he wants to attack with both shields in a single round, he needs to pick up the two weapon fighting chain.
Use the weapon category tables for the shields. Light shields are light melee weapons. Heavy shields are 1-handed weapons.
If he wants to dual wield two heavy shields, he's going to eat heavy penalties.
If he wants to dual wield two light shields, he's going to lose out on some main hand damage.
Either modify Improved shield bash to affect only one type of shield, or allow it to affect only one shield at a time.
Note that shield master only comes into play if the user is wielding a weapon and a shield, not two shields. Don't let a spiked shield count as a weapon for this feat.
Change Shield Focus and Greater Shield Focus to only affect one shield.
The overall effect of these changes are to keep bonuses within reasonable levels. If he wants the extra shield ac and twf, he'll have to pay for them. And he shouldn't get double bonuses out of shield feats, since they're implied with only one shield in mind and thus aren't balanced when considering two shields.
He'll have to pick the equivalent of two daggers or two short swords for damage, the equivalent of two short swords or two long swords for weight if he wants to get double the bonus from the same feat. These changes, I believe, will bring the twf shield wielder into balance. The extra options available for shield feats will take away from slots that would otherwise go to better damage, so he can decide for himself if he wants the extra armor class or the extra damage. He won't automatically get both.
My suggestion from here would be to put together a twf fighter build with short swords and a twf fighter build with light spiked shields. Compare damage and ac between the two. The shield fighter should run a slightly higher ac and a slightly lower average damage. If the differences are large, try to pinpoint the specific elements that are unbalancing. They can be modified.
Explain to your player that these modifications to feats are specifically because they weren't written with the idea of wielding two shields in mind, and that the changes are necessary to keep the class balanced with other options present in the game. You can even point out the differences with the two warrior builds as how this will affect his gameplay.
Wielding two shields shouldn't deal as much damage as wielding two actual weapons, but the loss in damage is offset by the increase in armor class. If you can keep those two elements balanced in your game, you shouldn't have any problems. :)
As a rules-lawyer, I point out that dual-wielding shields doesn't work in-game.
You would be incorrect. I have pointed out before that there was a build using PFRPG core feats that allowed for a character to dual wield shields. I believe it might have even been the post DM_Blake linked. With a strict reading of the rules (shield bash having to be off hand) the build earlier in this post wouldn't work. The "legitimate" (for lack of a better term) build that was created used the feat line for improvised weapons to allow for "main hand" attacks with the shield as an improvised weapon and then the shield bash feats for the off hand (obviously the TWF feat line as well). It was very feat intensive before getting into possible weapon focus feat and etc but was a viable build in the core rule set for the two shield fighting concept.
this is a misinterpretation, as RAW there is nothing preventing you from dual wielding shields, the only reason they even make the statement about it being an off hand weapon is for purposes of adding str to damage. nothing in the rules say anything about it needing to be an improvised weapon. like i said this is a misinterpretation.
|
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 bucklers.
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 forearms 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 impractical(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 attacks 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 bucklers. So in theory in the real world I'm 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...
They are a variant form of kota samurai used them as forearm shields to block blows as the resources to create medieval shields did not really exist in japan nor did the culture and tech support it
|
|
I will admit a few years back that I played a dwarf who wielded a dwarven buckler-axe on each arm. It was fun thematically, and made a cool visual (think of a heavily armored dwarven fighter charging with, effectively, a two-headed axe blade strapped to each arm).
That does sound cool (although like the tortoise shields better than the axe-bucklers, visually).
I also liked the imagery of the all-spiked armor and weapons (spiked gauntlets, spiked helmets, etc.) from the 2nd edition Complete Dwarves Handbook and the similar 'badger-warriors' from the Gnomes & Halflings book.
Yet another thing, like armies of people using two-weapon fighting, or spiked chains, that never appeared in the real-world, but looks kinda neat in a fantasy setting.
Dual wielding shields is still light years more physically viable than a dire flail. I've yet to find a reasonable strike with such a weapon that doesn't cause the opposing end to hit you, typically right in the elbow or back.
this is a misinterpretation, as RAW there is nothing preventing you from dual wielding shields, the only reason they even make the statement about it being an off hand weapon is for purposes of adding str to damage. nothing in the rules say anything about it needing to be an improvised weapon. like i said this is a misinterpretation.
Please note that is your opinion. If you read the rules for shield bash it specifically states that a shield bash is an off hand attack. If you choose to ignore that in your games, that is fine, but that is what is stated in the book. In organized play where there could be multiple differing opinions on a subject, the rules text trumps your opinion. Where I'm from, the rules text in the shield description where they mention shield bash attacks as being off hand attacks... Well that would be RAW even if it might not be RAI by Paizo. Not sure what you are reading, if you'd like to point out where in the book it says shield bash attacks are main hand attacks I'll be completely willing to read up on it and change my mind.
If it were a simple matter of misinterpretation the subject would have been put to bed by now, the number and length of posts would indicate otherwise and the Paizo crew has been far too busy to clear it up for us from the posts they have made.
i will admit it is my opinion but i don't feel like they would not make it perfectly clear that it is only an off hand weapon and wouldn't work without penalties in the main hand, simply staiting its an off hand weapon just doesn't feel like enough to make that judgment.