I too really liked the idea of the phalanx fighter but didn't think the things it gains are worth the things it gives up. Plus some things are just plain ridiculous - wielding a polearm one-handed? Sure a long spear can be wielded one-handed - the classic Greek hoplite is a great example. But a halberd or glaive or guisarme? Maybe if you treat it as a long-handled axe, but trying to wield an axe on the end of a 5-8 foot pole? Perhaps if it instead allowed you to wield a polearm, other than a longspear, while using a shield but with some kind of penalty....
Brace as an immediate action is very situational (especially as it has limited usage per day). I'd much rather get the attack and damage bonus usable on every attack.
Lower penalties to attack while using a tower shield are nice-ish, but historically the shield was used in phalanxes offensively (which in D&D speak can be a shield bash), yet you can't shield bash with a tower shield.
But then at level 15 you get nice bonuses to bull-rushes when using a tower shield. So you can smack someone with a tower shield to knock them back, but you can't smack them to cause damage?
If phalanx fighters gained the ability to shield-bash with a tower shield, then I think the variant would work much better.
As it stands you could build a standard fighter who could outperform a phalanx fighter when equipped exactly the same.
Much agreement. and the shield master aint much better. In fact it's worse.
Active defense- +ac when fighting defensively. yeah that's great if you want to effectively do nothing all round.
shield fighter- + to attack, and damage with shield bash. Two-weapon fighter gets the same bonus with both his weapons. Also note It gives you the ability to switch between the shield, and a weapon in a full attack. too bad anyone can already do this. its not an ability at all!
shield buffet- give up your full round attack to give the enemy -2 to attack..why don't I just hit him with a full attack instead?
so shield fighter has absolutely no advantage over a base fighter.
Wrong on a few points, read the abilities and the rules again for full round attacks.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."
You still have to designate which attacks are from which hand (so you are still making a string of attacks with one weapon for a BAB set and then the other weapon is being used for the off hand set). This ability allows you to use one weapon for ALL attacks if you choose to.
Basically you go full attack with out taking TWF and can choose to use either your weapon or your shield for any of the attacks and take no penalty for it on any attack made - normally you would be taking a huge penalty for not having the feat for TWF by using 2 weapons. Also as written if you did have TWF you could make all attacks with the shield or all attacks with the main hand weapon.
Far from worthless and no one else can do that....
Active defense can be used with combat expertise so you can use it when fighting, not just defensively like you said. Being a fighter you usually don't have a need for swift actions, this ability allows you to share it with an ally too. I don't know many party members who wouldn't like free dodge bonuses when they are where you are in a fight.
Shield buffet is a move action and as such you can can use it before making an attack and reduce the targets AC by 2 as well as reduce their attacks on you by 2. At 13th level it is a swift action so you can use it with a full attack action as well.
I play society so anything past level 12 doesn't matter to me :-D^Thats important because it explains why I don't care about shield buffet turning swift at level 13. It is not worth a move action, and my AC is already very high.
There is nothing a shield fighter has to gain from combat expertise. We are very feat hungry, and I'm not wasting a feat for AC. My ac is already very high.
Two-weapon fighter get an AC bonus without -attack penalties.I disagree with your interpretation of the rules. (the rules are very unclear)
-Two weapon fighting"if you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."
-full attack "If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first."
I feel that the full attack section makes it pretty clear that I can attack with either weapon, or one weapon. It made no mention of TWF anywhere, but it was clear about the fact that I can use either weapon.
The two-weapon fighting section very specifically notes that I suffer a penalty IF I get an extra attack. I am not getting an extra attack thus I am not two-weapon fighting.
This ability is already legal.
You are most definitely wrong about the full attack, it has nothing to do with you using multiple attacks... If you use one weapon in your main hand (insert weapon name here) and then use another weapon (shield bash which states it is off hand attack) you ARE doing a "two weapon attack" which introduces the TWF penalties. By using a weapon and then introducing shield bashes (which are stated to be off hand attacks in the item description) you are now subjecting yourself to multiple attacks and the associated penalties.
RAW states it, your assumption it is legal is incorrect...
If it were a sword and a dagger I wouldn't be arguing it, we're talking shields which have specific language of "off hand."
Due to your flawed understanding of the full round attack and shield bash interaction your combat model is invalid in the rest of your post.
Okay, I didn't actually read a lot of the above posts, because honestly, I have no idea what they are talking about. The whole "Two Weapon Fighting with a Shield" has me baffled.
I mean, sure, the shield is considered a weapon, and you can use it to attack in a pinch, but it is a REALLY BAD weapon. That is to say, it is bad to attack with, as a parrying weapon it is awesome. My understanding of reading some of the above is that it is always considered an off-hand weapon, so it will always do 1/2 Str damage. Is that correct? If so that makes some sense, but then it goes back to: Why are you attacking with it? If the Double Slice feat allows you to do full Str damage, then I would say that it really should be an exception where you can't.
It seems to me that the most common use of a shield would be to either a.) parry, or b.) shove someone back. I don't see how it could do any damage to someone in full armor, or even much damage to someone in NO armor.
Think about this, the main advantage of a weapon, of any kind, is that it increase your reach. Talk to any martial fighting expert and they will tell you this. A shield actually REDUCES your reach to the length of just your upper arm instead of your whole arm.
So in my mind, having a "sword and board some love" would be allowing a fighter to increase his defense with his shield, and increase his damage with his main weapon. Increasing his damage with a Shield seems silly.
Edit: Oh, and as far as I know of Phalanx fighting, they did not use their shields to attack with. They pushed with their shields (Bullrush?) and stabbed with their spears. There was never any expectation that their shields would do any damage.
|
Okay, I didn't actually read a lot of the above posts, because honestly, I have no idea what they are talking about. The whole "Two Weapon Fighting with a Shield" has me baffled.
I mean, sure, the shield is considered a weapon, and you can use it to attack in a pinch, but it is a REALLY BAD weapon. That is to say, it is bad to attack with, as a parrying weapon it is awesome. My understanding of reading some of the above is that it is always considered an off-hand weapon, so it will always do 1/2 Str damage. Is that correct? If so that makes some sense, but then it goes back to: Why are you attacking with it? If the Double Slice feat allows you to do full Str damage, then I would say that it really should be an exception where you can't.
It seems to me that the most common use of a shield would be to either a.) parry, or b.) shove someone back. I don't see how it could do any damage to someone in full armor, or even much damage to someone in NO armor.
Think about this, the main advantage of a weapon, of any kind, is that it increase your reach. Talk to any martial fighting expert and they will tell you this. A shield actually REDUCES your reach to the length of just your upper arm instead of your whole arm.
So in my mind, having a "sword and board some love" would be allowing a fighter to increase his defense with his shield, and increase his damage with his main weapon. Increasing his damage with a Shield seems silly.
Edit: Oh, and as far as I know of Phalanx fighting, they did not use their shields to attack with. They pushed with their shields (Bullrush?) and stabbed with their spears. There was never any expectation that their shields would do any damage.
You should probably look for The Deadliest Warrior online and watch some of their old shows if you think shields aren't legitimate offensive weapons.
I'm not really sure what you're aiming for here.
A ____ and shield fighter is, even in core, the single most effective melee fighter build possible. The defenses you can put up relative to level compared to any other class/build are ridiculous, and offense really doesn't suffer very much at all given the changes to power attack (among other things).
I don't think, given that a shield brings incredible defensive benefits to the table relative to any other weapon choice (7 points of AC by level 20, 5 easy long before that), a sword and board should be a terribly effective offensive power house as well. Again though, that said, to describe a sword and board fighter as unable to act offensively and with conviction is kind of ridiculous. His attack bonus isn't any lower than, for instance, a fighter focusing on a two handed weapon, and the damage output between them isn't that large in my experience.
YMMV, but yeah, Sword and Board is already insanely good, they didn't need any more love, and got plenty with the APG in the ability to deflect rays and other unpleasant things.
a bunch of currect incorrect bunk.
The shield is far from a bad weapon -- it's wonderful for the disarm -- the lead edge is actually a great means to slashing into someone, while the face is good for checking, breath stealing maneuvers, and the top can really crack open someone when used in an upward swing, and if you are using a "heater" shield then the point is great for downward thrusts on a dropped opponent without opening your guard.
All these moves are much easier since closing in is so much less risky with a shield and getting the leverage and power is much easier too since it's close in to center (and therefore your power arc) than other weapons. The fact that it works with your arm instead of being a fulcrum at the end of your arm gives you much more power with much less work and much less distance needed. It's the same body mechanics that tells you to get into someone to throw them and to bring them into you when applying power -- closer to body core == more power.
Also a shield doesn't actually shorten your reach -- a shield when used properly will extend it -- not by much but you do gain about a foot to foot and a half with it easily (and that's with the conservative maneuvers). In fact when using a shield in a forward stance your shield shouldn't be laying beside your body -- it's folly to do so since more impact gets through into your body when the shield is hit -- the top edge should be at about shoulder height with the bottom edge pushing out towards the opponent at about a 50~60% angle from the top -- this buys more room for you since they can't close past the edge without giving you a good chance to strike at them with it, and it covers more of your "lines of attack" with more maneuverability to cover the rest without exposing the center.
Damage with armor -- isn't what you think it is more than likely -- to use a modern example (slightly poor one but stick with me) look to the football player -- how does he get hurt? Impact. You don't need to "get through the armor" you just have to transfer force through it -- this is what makes the flanged mace such a great weapon (indeed any mace in general) it's great at transfering force past the steel shell and rattling what is inside.
Also thinking about armor is a bit off -- it wasn't that common for people to have a lot of good armor on a battlefield -- remember that plate came late in the game and earlier armor left a lot to be desired when it came to the different types of damage you can take -- especially bludgeoning damage from the side of a shield.
The "main advantage" of a weapon isn't only reach in fact there isn't just "one main advantage" at all -- it's application, ease of use, and impact at strike. A long ranged weapon that can't drop an opponent is before they get to you is useless -- as well as a weapon that doesn't allow you to defend yourself. If it's easy to use, but doesn't do much to the other guy then it's not a good weapon, especially if it leaves you in just as much danger.
Tower shields is a bit of a misnomer in modern society -- the hourglass shields of the Trojans (at least they are referenced for these shields in myth) are tower shields as are the kite shield of the middle ages -- even though they are not the "big block of wood that sits in front of me" like the Roman tower shields were -- a tower shield doesn't have to simply be a plank on your arm that takes up much room and this is a fact that seems to be lost in large part I think because of the prevalence of imagery of the Roman shields.
The greeks certainly did use their bronze shields to strike with as well as their spears -- and you take 22 Lbs of bronze coming at you in any way and tell me you don't expect to be hurt by it -- cause I'm not going to believe you -- especially when the best armor at the time was the greek lamellar -- which wasn't all that common.
I'm not really sure what you're aiming for here.
A ____ and shield fighter is, even in core, the single most effective melee fighter build possible. The defenses you can put up relative to level compared to any other class/build are ridiculous, and offense really doesn't suffer very much at all given the changes to power attack (among other things).
I don't think, given that a shield brings incredible defensive benefits to the table relative to any other weapon choice (7 points of AC by level 20, 5 easy long before that), a sword and board should be a terribly effective offensive power house as well. Again though, that said, to describe a sword and board fighter as unable to act offensively and with conviction is kind of ridiculous. His attack bonus isn't any lower than, for instance, a fighter focusing on a two handed weapon, and the damage output between them isn't that large in my experience.
YMMV, but yeah, Sword and Board is already insanely good, they didn't need any more love, and got plenty with the APG in the ability to deflect rays and other unpleasant things.
I understand this thought from a balance point of view -- but there is a reason shield and (weapon) was so common -- because it was so effective. It gave defense, offense, and was one of the best options available, hence everyone used it.
While being common isn't always an indicator of greatness it usually shows something of what works best -- in the case of the weapon and shield this holds up.
A bunch of incorrect bunk.
Actually I don't think that everything you said was wrong or "bunk", but I do believe you are incorrect on many things. Just saying I said "a bunch of currect(sp) incorrect bunk" does not do anything for your arguments.
As I said in my previous post, a shield CAN be used as a weapon, but it is far from the most efficient. I have read threads here where people were talking about dual wielding TWO shields, which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Has there ever been such a style at any point in history? And if there was (anythings possible), can you really show that it was effective? I seriously doubt it.
Do you get more power because a shield is closer to your body? Sure, but you are spreading that power over a large surface. That is exactly what armor does to protect you from damage, how is that helping you as a weapon?
Can you use the edge to hit instead? Yes, but it is not sharp like a sword. It is heavy, like a mace, but doesn't have the reach or momentum of a swung mace.
If find the idea that it increases your reach by "about a foot to foot and a half" unbelievable. I have held actual shields, there is no way to extend your reach with a shield. The pointed heater shield is heavy. In order to tilt it up so that the point (not sharp that I have ever seen) is pointed away from you, you would have to rotate your arm. You now have the top edge pointed towards your neck and the point still won't be any farther away from you than your outstretched arm.
You talk a lot about knocking people down or using a shield to disarm or using if for inclose maneuvers, all while protected behind the shield. Here I agree with you. Maybe there could be feats to add bonuses to certain maneuvers when using a shield, that would be good and flavorful and would, in my mind, be more accurate on the actual use of shields. But relying on your shield to be a damage dealer still seems silly to me.
A bunch of incorrect bunk.Actually I don't think that everything you said was wrong or "bunk", but I do believe you are incorrect on many things. Just saying I said "a bunch of currect(sp) incorrect bunk" does not do anything for your arguments.
Actually that's because everything I said wasn't wrong or bunk -- you on the other hand came in with a bunch of information that was plain wrong.
EDIT:
The points I considered wrong:
1. That a shield is a "bad" weapon.
2. That a shield can't deal damage.
3. That tower shields were not used to deal damage.
4. That a shield reduces reach.
5. That a weapon's main advantage is reach.
Clarification -- in phalanx fighting the shield would be used to defend -- up until the point the enemy broke. When in formation you rarely use the tactics you would in a one on one fight and indeed such tactics will generally get you killed (the reverse can also hold true, using phalanx tactics in a one on one fight). This is not to say the shield wasn't used to hurt people.
As I said in my previous post, a shield CAN be used as a weapon, but it is far from the most efficient. I have read threads here where people were talking about dual wielding TWO shields, which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Has there ever been such a style at any point in history? And if there was (anythings possible), can you really show that it was effective? I seriously doubt it.
And this has anything to do with how a shield is used, or what type of weapon a shield is? No.
Do you get more power because a shield is closer to your body? Sure, but you are spreading that power over a large surface. That is exactly what armor does to protect you from damage, how is that helping you as a weapon?
Speed x mass = more hurt. Simple physics, and it maintains with a shield -- tell me what's going to hurt more and cause more damage a small thing travelling at a speed or a large thing traveling at the same speed -- basically put which would you rather have hit you at 30 mph, a baseball or a car?
This is what the shield does -- much like the car it hits all of you at once instead of just a singular point of impact -- if instead you catch with the edge it takes all that mass and turns it into a mace (basically) and really brings in all the extra "umpf" you put behind the swing just due to the fact you're coming from closer in your own strength center.
Can you use the edge to hit instead? Yes, but it is not sharp like a sword. It is heavy, like a mace, but doesn't have the reach or momentum of a swung mace.
Actually it has more momentum because you can get more of yourself behind it -- reach is partially the size of the shield of course and will vary to some degree with which type of shield you are using -- the fact that we have a buckler that is "strapped on your arm" instead of basically being a punching shield shows just how far we still have to go for accuracy in role playing games (just as a sidenote).
That edge of the shield is indeed very much like the mace -- except it has even more coming behind it than the mace does and delivers with much less room for deflection of the blow. Caught on someone's head, arm, or heavens forbid chest cavity the fight is over.
If find the idea that it increases your reach by "about a foot to foot and a half" unbelievable. I have held actual shields, there is no way to extend your reach with a shield. The pointed heater shield is heavy. In order to tilt it up so that the point (not sharp that I have ever seen) is pointed away from you, you would have to rotate your arm. You now have the top edge pointed towards your neck and the point still won't be any farther away from you than your outstretched arm.
It doesn't have to be sharp -- it just has to have point. Heck if we were relying on "sharp" to deal our damage then we would be sorely lacking in most cases with melee weapons. You can extend your arm when you strike with the shield -- it doesn't have to stay close in at all times. Now with the shield in the pointed position you are right -- it's not that much further out, if at all -- however the opponent must remember you can straighten that arm at any time and bring that shield out to bear -- which is a heavy strike to take.
It would be a gamble so if you do it you best be sure of the hit -- but with connection the fight is over.
You talk a lot about knocking people down or using a shield to disarm or using if for inclose maneuvers, all while protected behind the shield. Here I agree with you. Maybe there could be feats to add bonuses to certain maneuvers when using a shield, that would be good and flavorful and would, in my mind, be more accurate on the actual use of shields. But relying on your shield to be a damage dealer still seems silly to me.
The way a shield does its damage isn't really the same as any other weapon that it is typically used with.
Most weapons rely on the swing principle -- you swing it and apply the momentum at point of impact. A shield doesn't do this -- it relies on leverage and the full intensity of power you can bring to bear due to its different nature. You aren't just striking with your hip with a shield -- your striking with your entire side, if not your entire body. Every major muscle group can be brought to bear to power the shield's strike leading to more power with greater mass.
If getting hit with a sword is like being struck with a baseball then getting clobbered with a shield is (again) akin to being hit by a car. It's not the point of impact that's hurting you its the fact your entire body just took a concussive blow and isn't capable of taking it all at once.
Now that's not to say several types of shield can't be used to strike in a more conventional fashion -- my above points about the edge of the shield rely partially on the fact they can be used in such fashion -- but again the power of the short movement closer into the body is what really gives the umpf when combined with the momentum of a hip swing.
In the end it comes down to a completely different technique of striking -- more related to what you would do in groundfighting than the striking of fist and feet (which would be closer related to what you would do with most 'conventional' weapons).
A bunch of incorrect bunk.Actually I don't think that everything you said was wrong or "bunk", but I do believe you are incorrect on many things. Just saying I said "a bunch of currect(sp) incorrect bunk" does not do anything for your arguments.Actually that's because everything I said wasn't wrong or bunk -- you on the other hand came in with a bunch of information that was plain wrong.
EDIT:
The points I considered wrong:
1. That a shield is a "bad" weapon.
I said it was a bad offensive weapon, not that it was a bad weapon overall.
2. That a shield can't deal damage.
Where did I ever say that? I said that it could deal some damage, but not enough to be relied on. Otherwise, why have a sword?
3. That tower shields were not used to deal damage.
I never mentioned the tower shield specifically, but now that you mention it, I doubt that the type of shields that are referred to as tower shields in Pathfinder were ever used to deal damage.
4. That a shield reduces reach.
It does if you hit with the flat of it. With the edge I guess you could get about the same as your fist, but not much, if any, more than that.
5. That a weapon's main advantage is reach.
It is. Not the only advantage to be sure, but certainly the main advantage.
Speed x mass = more hurt. Simple physics, and it maintains with a shield -- tell me what's going to hurt more and cause more damage a small thing travelling at a speed or a large thing traveling at the same speed -- basically put which would you rather have hit you at 30 mph, a baseball or a car?
Do you get more power because a shield is closer to your body? Sure, but you are spreading that power over a large surface. That is exactly what armor does to protect you from damage, how is that helping you as a weapon?
There is more to physics than speed and mass. Let's put it this way, I would rather have you throw a car at me than a baseball. Because you wouldn't have enough force to even move the car, let alone throw it far enough to hit me. Just because you have a larger area doesn't mean you have more force to hit with. If you put all your weight behind a sword thrust will go right through me, but using all your weight with a body block might knock me down, but I doubt it will even leave a bruise. Hitting me with a metal shield would fall somewhere inbetween the two, but probably much closer to the body block than the sword thrust.
As for reach, yes you can extend your arm, which gives you a reach equal to the length of your arm. Having the shield stick out to the side might, I guess, extend your reach slightly if you and it sticking strait out, but I don't think it would be working very well as a shield at that point.
So to be clear. I think the shield makes an excellent defensive weapon. It can be used to block and parry incoming blows. With a sword breaker or catch of some kind on it, it can be used to disarm or sunder a weapon (I think the Vikings used their shields like this). It can be used to knock people down (Bullrush). It can even be used for close in fighting (like when engaged in a grapple), but it will never match the offensive power or deadliness of a sword or other primary weapon (spears, axes, maces, etc.).
From a game perspective the point of fighting with two weapons was to get the extra attack, and since most people can't fight with two weapons in hand they attached a penalty.
If you want to fight with two weapons most people would just use the better weapon so it is normally not an issue. If a player wanted to attack with a shield, which in the game is worse than most weapons, I would not mind it, as long as they did not take the extra attack. I don't think there is a concrete rule on whether it was legal or not because nobody ever really thought about it. It is kind of like the penalty for firing into melee is there because you are trying to not hit your buddy, but I have seen post where people have tried to get around the penalty by not caring who they hit.
RAI-If you use TWF the penalty applies, IMHO.
I don't think it is a real issue balance-wise though, even though someone can probably think of a way to exploit it.
Offensively If I saw a guy with two weapons I would charge him with my shield, knock him to the ground, and stab him to death. He has no chance offensively, or defensibly. He is screwed.
Now onto the mechanics a little.
The post is proclaiming the fact that the best shield build is two-weapon fighter. You can like it or not. IT's true.
The two weapon fighter with a sword and board gets an AC bonus with full attacks, He gets an attack bonus to his weapon, and his shield, and can use both in a standard attack.
If someone wants to be a historically accurate soldier this build may interest them, because beyond this sub-class the shielded fighter is under par compared to any other fighter type. And that is Bull!
This build effectively represents a Sword and board fighter in the sense that he has substantial battlefield control, and good offensive power that does not cut his defensive strength. He prefers to hold his ground, and loses his bonus AC, and extra attacks when he moves around.
You can argue that some tiny details are wrong, but you are ignoring the fact that shields are already a terrible representation of their actual strength.
The reason that shields don't get that kind of love in Pathfinder/D&D is two-fold. The first is simple game balance. In real life, there's a reason that folks never decided to take a pair of shields into battle. Despite the potential offensive power of a shield, you're just going to get in your own way trying to wield two at once. If shields were built according to D&D rules to be mechanically superior weapons, you'd have a bunch of yahoos running about attempting to dual-wield the things. It would get every bit as silly as the 3.5 ascendancy of the spiked chain.
Secondly, shields just ain't sexy. Consider this. The D&D weapon that sets the mechanical baseline for all man-on-man melee combat is the straight bladed European longsword/bastard sword. Every other weapon is balanced against it. Why? Because the longsword is the weapon of decision in 90% of fantasy and the European myth upon which it is based. Excalibur? Durendal? Tyrfing? Glamdring? Stormbringer?
Nevermind that by the advent of plate armor, such swords had fallen into relative obsolescence. Even then, those swords had come to symbolize the warrior virtues of Western Europe. So their failings get glossed over in the mechanics, because they're sexy. By extension, mechanically superior weapons get short shrift in dozens of ways, because the straight-bladed longsword is the default choice per the mythology.
Why should shields be any different? They're already granting a hefty bonus to AC; what else do you want?
Much agreement. and the shield master aint much better. In fact it's worse.
Active defense- +ac when fighting defensively. yeah that's great if you want to effectively do nothing all round.
shield fighter- + to attack, and damage with shield bash. Two-weapon fighter gets the same bonus with both his weapons. Also note It gives you the ability to switch between the shield, and a weapon in a full attack. too bad anyone can already do this. its not an ability at all!
shield buffet- give up your full round attack to give the enemy -2 to attack..why don't I just hit him with a full attack instead?
so shield fighter has absolutely no advantage over a base fighter.
Wrong on a few points, read the abilities and the rules again for full round attacks.
"If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first."
You still have to designate which attacks are from which hand (so you are still making a string of attacks with one weapon for a BAB set and then the other weapon is being used for the off hand set). This ability allows you to use one weapon for ALL attacks if you choose to.
Basically you go full attack with out taking TWF and can choose to use either your weapon or your shield for any of the attacks and take no penalty for it on any attack made - normally you would be taking a huge penalty for not having the feat for TWF by using 2 weapons. Also as written if you did have TWF you could make all attacks with the shield or all attacks with the main hand weapon.
Far from worthless and no one else can do that....
Active defense can be used with combat expertise so you can use it when fighting, not just defensively like you said. Being a fighter you usually don't have a need for swift actions, this ability allows you to share it with an ally too. I don't know many party members who wouldn't like free dodge...
As far as I know,
this interpretation of RAW is incorrect.You only take penalties from two weapon fighting if you are getting the extra attack(s) with the off-hand weapon.
IF your character sits there with a high ac and no attack he is effectively useless. This isn't WoW you can't agro things. You have to hit, or you shall be ignored.
My AC is high enough meaning it's already higher then everyone else. At which point I would rather take something to plus my attack, plus my will saves, give me more utility... anything but more AC.
That is a personal play choice, it isn't the end all be all decision though. YOU think that, not everyone does. Just because you feel that way, doesn't make it the "correct" way, just the way you think it should be.