If I am dual-wielding a heavy shield and a longsword, can I treat the shield as my primary weapon and my longsword as my off-hand weapon?
If I am dual-wielding a heavy shield and a longsword, can I treat the shield as my primary weapon and my longsword as my off-hand weapon?
I think a shield bash is described as an off-hand attack, which shows the intent. It would be up to the DM to let you get around it. From my point of view you are limited to using it as an offhand attack. If the off-hand language was not specifically called out I would say you could get away with it.
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, heavy” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next turn. An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Drawing directly from the text:
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
I don't think so. The wording implies that it is a secondary type attack.
This deviates from the wording on Armor Spikes which says:
"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case."
Aside: I realize there exist various twf shield fighter threads, however, I don't see this as a valid archetype.
EDIT: Curses! Wraithstr1ke
Has there been any official clarification on the matter? I'm not completely convinced.
Has there been any official clarification on the matter? I'm not completely convinced.
Really?
Look it specifically calls out an off-hand. Why do that if it did not matter?
There has been no official clarification that I can think of because I don't think anyone has questioned it, but I will do a search.
People have questioned it in the past. I've seen a few threads. Dunno if it ever got anywhere though.
My 13th-level fighter I'm working on has 18 Strength, a crap ton of shield feats and a +3 keen longsword and +4 bashing heavy steel shield. His attack line is as follows:
Melee +3 keen longsword +20/+15/+10 (1d8+9/17-20) and
+4 bashing heavy steel shield +26 (1d8+13 plus bull rush) with Two-Weapon Fighting, or
+3 keen longsword +16/+11/+6 (1d8+17/17-20) and
+4 bashing heavy steel shield +22 (1d8+21 plus bull rush) with Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting
If, however, he can use his shield as his primary weapon, his attack lines would look more like this:
Melee +4 bashing heavy steel shield +26/+21/+16 (1d8+13 plus bull rush) and
+3 keen longsword +20 (1d8+9/17-20) with Two-Weapon Fighting, or
+4 bashing heavy steel shield +22/+17/+12 (1d8+21 plus bull rush) and
+3 keen longsword +16 (1d8+17/17-20) with Power Attack and Two-Weapon Fighting
Now, with my stats as they are, why would I ever choose to use the former over the latter? It's strictly inferior!
I noticed the rules text you quoted uses the word "can" denoting that it is optional. I see nothing preventing me from wielding my shield in my primary hand.
Tell me: How would you run it if I had ONLY the shield? Would you still require it to be in my offhand?
Ridiculous I say!
The only option it gives is to be used as an off-hand attack. If you look at the shield entries in the weapon lists, they all call it out as being an off-hand weapon.
Funny. The shield entry in the weapon list says nothing of the sort:
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
This, along with its entry in the weapons table, leads me to believe you treat it like you would any other weapon, using the standard rules for weapons.
The armor/shield section goes into more detail, saying you can shield bash with it as an off-hand weapon, but I see nothing the denotes that it always MUST be an off-hand weapon.
I imagine it is phrased the way it is NOT because you HAVE to use it that way, but because that is the manner in which shields are generally wielded in fantasy.
People have questioned it in the past. I've seen a few threads. Dunno if it ever got anywhere though.
My 13th-level fighter I'm working on has 18 Strength, a crap ton of shield feats and a +3 keen longsword and +4 bashing heavy steel shield. His attack line is as follows:
Melee +3 keen longsword +20/+15/+10 (1d8+9/17-20) and
+4 bashing heavy steel shield +26 (1d8+13 plus bull rush) with Two-Weapon Fighting, or+3 keen longsword +16/+11/+6 (1d8+17/17-20) and
+4 bashing heavy steel shield +22 (1d8+21 plus bull rush) with Power Attack and Two-Weapon FightingIf, however, he can use his shield as his primary weapon, his attack lines would look more like this:
Melee +4 bashing heavy steel shield +26/+21/+16 (1d8+13 plus bull rush) and
+3 keen longsword +20 (1d8+9/17-20) with Two-Weapon Fighting, or+4 bashing heavy steel shield +22/+17/+12 (1d8+21 plus bull rush) and
+3 keen longsword +16 (1d8+17/17-20) with Power Attack and Two-Weapon FightingNow, with my stats as they are, why would I ever choose to use the former over the latter? It's strictly inferior!
I noticed the rules text you quoted uses the word "can" denoting that it is optional. I see nothing preventing me from wielding my shield in my primary hand.
Tell me: How would you run it if I had ONLY the shield? Would you still require it to be in my offhand?
Ridiculous I say!
The optional part is whether or not you use the shield, not which hand. No other weapon has the that language in it.
edit:To clarify, it is your choice about whether or not to shield bash, but he off-hand is not an option.
You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
Note it says you can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. That is where you choice is. Then there is a comma followed by instructions telling you how it is done.
Example:You may drive to the store if want, using my blue car. That means you are restricted to my blue car. The red car(primary hand) is not an option.To answer your last question by RAW you are restricted to an offhand attack. It does not say when making a full round attack you are restricted, but only that you are restricted. I would not enforce the off-hand in my game if the shield bash is the only attack you choose to make, but I don't enforce massive damage either so what I would or would not enforce is irrelevant.
The only option it gives is to be used as an off-hand attack. If you look at the shield entries in the weapon lists, they all call it out as being an off-hand weapon.Funny. The shield entry in the weapon list says nothing of the sort:
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
This, along with its entry in the weapons table, leads me to believe you treat it like you would any other weapon, using the standard rules for weapons.
The armor/shield section goes into more detail, saying you can shield bash with it as an off-hand weapon, but I see nothing the denotes that it always MUST be an off-hand weapon.
I imagine it is phrased the way it is NOT because you HAVE to use it that way, but because that is the manner in which shields are generally wielded in fantasy.
The game does not use mechanical language for fluff. That off hand sentence is a limiter. If every 1-handed weapon can already be used off-hand then putting it in for the shield really serves no purpose. That is like saying "you can cast this spell any time you are awake."
Alright, so let's say that you are right and that I can only use my shield as an off-hand attack.
I have 3 attacks from my base attack bonus.
Is there anything preventing me from taking those three attacks with my shield (in my off-hand)?
Is there anything preventing me from making those three attacks with the shield, and additionally make a 4th attack with my longsword (in my primary hand) with Two-Weapon Fighting?
As far as I can tell, you can always use weapons interchangeably when dual-wielding (whether or not you are using iterative attacks or two-weapon fighting).
Following your interpretation means there aren't any rules covering how one is to wield a shield when ONLY attacking with the shield.
I refuse to believe that is the case. Best to go with the simple solution of treating it like any other weapon.
In any case, I would certainly like some official input on the matter. I'm not the first person to bring it up.
Alright, so let's say that you are right and that I can only use my shield as an off-hand attack.
I have 3 attacks from my base attack bonus.
Is there anything preventing me from taking those three attacks with my shield (in my off-hand)?
Is there anything preventing me from making those three attacks with the shield, and additionally make a 4th attack with my longsword (in my primary hand) with Two-Weapon Fighting?
As far as I can tell, you can always use weapons interchangeably when dual-wielding (whether or not you are using iterative attacks or two-weapon fighting).
The off hand in pathfinder is not necessarily your left or right hand. Armor spikes which are not in a hand at all, but can be used as an off-hand weapon support this. The off-hand is the one that takes the penalty to the attack roll.
That means since you only get X many off-hand attacks, and shield bashing restricts the shield to the off-hand that any attacks with the penalty will be with the shield.
edit:If not for the specific language of sheild bash you may be able to use any weapon in the off-hand normally. I would have to check for that, but since you are using the shield which uses [specific] wording that means you are stuck with that ruling.
Following your interpretation means there aren't any rules covering how one is to wield a shield when ONLY attacking with the shield.
I refuse to believe that is the case. Best to go with the simple solution of treating it like any other weapon.
In any case, I would certainly like some official input on the matter. I'm not the first person to bring it up.
When attacking with only the shield by RAW you have to go with the shield bash rule of off-hand as an exception. I think it is silly, but what I like is not a factor here. I think it is silly that paralyzed characters get reflex saves, but that is the rule.
You may not be the first to bring it up, but nobody has been able to put up a sufficient arguement as to off-hand does not mean off-hand.
Alright, so let's say that you are right and that I can only use my shield as an off-hand attack.
I have 3 attacks from my base attack bonus.
Is there anything preventing me from taking those three attacks with my shield (in my off-hand)?
Is there anything preventing me from making those three attacks with the shield, and additionally make a 4th attack with my longsword (in my primary hand) with Two-Weapon Fighting?
As far as I can tell, you can always use weapons interchangeably when dual-wielding (whether or not you are using iterative attacks or two-weapon fighting).
Feat 1
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.
and
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.
This seems to indicate that the extra attack must be with the off hand. This reads as it's all iterative main-hand attacks, plus one extra off-hand attack.
Note that this first feat does not grant the off-hand attack, but merely reduces the penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon as well as a main-hand weapon.
Feat 2
In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty.
This clearly indicates that the feat grants you a second attack, at the standard iterative penalty for every iterative attack following your initial attack at full BAB.
Thus my observation holds.
It is full iterative attacks with the main-hand weapon, followed by one extra off-hand attack, and a second iterative off-hand attack if you...
Nice, you just saved me a some work.
Yes, it does seem that the extra attacks from two-weapon fighting must be from an off-hand. However, I still believe that you can use any of your weapons interchangeably when using just your iterative attack routine.
For example, if I can attack the orc with +15/+10/+5, and I am wielding a longsword, dagger, and armor spikes, I could start off with my sword (+15), thrust with my dagger (+10), and kick with my knee-mounted armor spike (+5).
I see nothing disallowing this sort of thing. By any other interpretation, one would not be able to draw multiple thrown weapons and attack with them without suffering two-weapon fighting penalties--which is obviously not the case.
Nigrescence, I feel I must point out something about your argument (although I agree with your point).
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
The italicized part (the part you quoted above) is a descriptive interpretation of the feat. It does not have strict rules impact. You must be cautious to cite from this part of feats as they are generally more flavorful than fuctional. The part to reference follows Benefit: as that is the actual game rules altering and functionality.
If you read the first sentence as the literal rules then you would say that people cannot fight with two weapons without the feat, which is clearly not the case.
Just to let you know for future reference.
Yes, it does seem that the extra attacks from two-weapon fighting must be from an off-hand. However, I still believe that you can use any of your weapons interchangeably when using just your iterative attack routine.
For example, if I can attack the orc with +15/+10/+5, and I am wielding a longsword, dagger, and armor spikes, I could start off with my sword (+15), thrust with my dagger (+10), and kick with my knee-mounted armor spike (+5).
I see nothing disallowing this sort of thing. By any other interpretation, one would not be able to draw multiple thrown weapons and attack with them without suffering two-weapon fighting penalties--which is obviously not the case.
When you use iterative attacks you are correct, you may interchange your weapons at will. However, you did not ask about iterative attacks, you asked about two weapon fighting with a shield as the main hand weapon. Two different cases.
The only option it gives is to be used as an off-hand attack. If you look at the shield entries in the weapon lists, they all call it out as being an off-hand weapon.Funny. The shield entry in the weapon list says nothing of the sort:
Shield, Heavy or Light: You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.
This, along with its entry in the weapons table, leads me to believe you treat it like you would any other weapon, using the standard rules for weapons.
The armor/shield section goes into more detail, saying you can shield bash with it as an off-hand weapon, but I see nothing the denotes that it always MUST be an off-hand weapon.
I imagine it is phrased the way it is NOT because you HAVE to use it that way, but because that is the manner in which shields are generally wielded in fantasy.
The shield does not, but the shield bash which describes the attack in question does. I would think an entry about a particular attack would take precedence.
Example:
Entry on light and heavy cars has information.
You later read information on a specific car, and then saying that particular entry does not apply. Really?
I did make an error, though, but it's not what you outlined. I linked to the wrong spot.
I re-read your post and see you accounted for it now, but it was later in the post. I was mistaken that you didn't account for this, but still it is good to be mindful of in your linking.
Nigrescence, I feel I must point out something about your argument (although I agree with your point).
Two-Weapon Fighting (Combat)
You can fight with a weapon wielded in each of your hands. You can make one extra attack each round with the secondary weapon.Prerequisite: Dex 15.
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6.
Normal: If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. When fighting in this way 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. If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light.
The italicized part (the part you quoted above) is a descriptive interpretation of the feat. It does not have strict rules impact. You must be cautious to cite from this part of feats as they are generally more flavorful than fuctional. The part to reference follows Benefit: as that is the actual game rules altering and functionality.
If you read the first sentence as the literal rules then you would say that people cannot fight with two weapons without the feat, which is clearly not the case.
Just to let you know for future reference.
All the benefit does is lessen the penalty. The normal section still implies the other attack must be made with the off hand weapon.
PS:You do have a point with the fluff statement, but I wanted to make sure it was not used by RD to try to lessen the argument.
RD I did FAQ the thread, not because I don't believe I am correct, but because I want the shield section errata'd to match the shield bash entry or at least made to refer to it.
PS:You do have a point with the fluff statement, but I wanted to make sure it was not used by RD to try to lessen the argument.
Quite.
Requiring you to use the off-hand might be RAW, but there's no logical explanation as to why you shouldn't be able to use your main hand instead.
Rule of zero, people. Honestly.
Rule zero, people. Honestly.
..does not exist in the rules forum, and RD is a very by the book guy.
I consider it very important to know the correct way to do things myself. Consistency is important to me, even if I am going to house rule something I don't like.
He actually brings up interesting things from time to time so I get to handle things before they become an issue.
@RD:Do not take that as encouragement. :)
@RD:Do not take that as encouragement. :)Saying that just encourages him.
I know.
Once the main group gets in he is going to get it bad for trying to pull this one off. Then he will dig his heels in.
If you think about what a shield bash actually consists of, it makes sense for it to be an "always off-hand" attack, even when it's the only attack you're making. Every weapon which isn't attached to defensive items (shields, shield spikes, armor spikes) or worn directly on the hand (brass knuckles) extends your reach in some manner. Even with a dagger, you can reach further than you can with your hand alone. That's half the point to a weapon from a physics perspective: longer reach = more force for the swing. (The other half is focusing that force down to a smaller area to cut or stab.)
A shield, on the other hand is strapped to your arm. You not only don't have as much reach with it, you actually have less reach and range of motion than you would by just punching someone. Assuming the shield is worn on the left arm, you can swing your arm from right to left to smack someone (with face or edge), hold it in front of you and lunge at them (with the face only - this is probably the "typical" shield bash), punch with it (edge only - this is effectively using it as an over-sized cestus), or raise it over your head and try to chop them with the edge. Nothing else will really give you any amount of force on your bash, and all of them (except punching) require getting closer to your enemy than you would with any other standard weapon (not that this has any reflection in the rules).
Given the awkwardness of making a shield bash attack, it's easy to see how you'd leave yourself out of position unless you were trained in how to recover quickly enough (i.e. the Imp Shield Bash feat), and how it could be harder to apply all of your strength (off hand attack)
Yar!
James Jacobs HAS tried to clarify some of this in the past already. This whole business about a shield bash being an off-hand only attack is, by JJ, not true.
Wow! Thanks Pirate!
Unfortunately, that little bit of AWESOME clarification doesn't refute Wraithstrike's point that the shield MUST be an off-hand weapon when fighting with two weapons.
Still, it's good to know that if I'm attacking with JUST the shield, it can be treated as a primary weapon. :D
I came looking for something similar, now I am confused, I'm planning on running a one shot campaign with my friends soon, I'm planning on using a phalanx fighter, and I wanted to know if i can shield bash with my fighter if someone gets close to me (i plan to use a reach weapon), and I wanted to know if I get the penalties for twf, although I don't think
I get them but whatever, wanted to make sure before I do this.
I came looking for something similar, now I am confused, I'm planning on running a one shot campaign with my friends soon, I'm planning on using a phalanx fighter, and I wanted to know if i can shield bash with my fighter if someone gets close to me (i plan to use a reach weapon), and I wanted to know if I get the penalties for twf, although I don't think
I get them but whatever, wanted to make sure before I do this.
You only take the two-weapon fighting penalties when you are attacking with two weapons AND are benefiting from an additional off-hand attack above and beyond what your base attack bonus-based iterative attack routine gives you.
i have personally ignored the off-hand text, i find it useless and unnecessarily confusing, i see no reason for the text and honestly feel its should be erratad out.
Still, it's good to know that if I'm attacking with JUST the shield, it can be treated as a primary weapon. :D
I thought we came this conclusion posts ago. You can use any weapon as a primary weapon or in your series of iterative attacks. However, you have asked about TWF, which is a different can of worms.
When you use iterative attacks you are correct, you may interchange your weapons at will. However, you did not ask about iterative attacks, you asked about two weapon fighting with a shield as the main hand weapon. Two different cases.