When you find the language that says "you can ONLY bash as an off-hand attack" let me know, because I ain't seeing it. Without that, all you've got is the OPTION of doing the off-hand attack, hence use of the word 'can' and not 'can only'.
If you don't attack with the other hand, by the rules, your one attack is a primary attack, and that can be a bash. ANd if a bash can be a primary attack some of the time, it can be the primary all of the time.
Any weapon usable in the off hand can be used instead as the primary hand. There is no 'handedness'. As long as you take the size considerations into account, you're golden, and it applies to shields.
==Aelryinth
"You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
I have a hard time reading it as anything else but "You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield. If you do so, it is used as an off-hand weapon."
Apparently you interpret it as meaning "You can bash an opponent with a light/heavy shield and (if you want to) in the process use it as an off-hand weapon."
Not being a native speaker of the English/American language I'm probably not qualified to judge this, but the second interpretation just doesn't sound plausible. Why would they even bother to tell me I might use it as an off-hand weapon to begin with when telling me to treat it as a martial bludgeoning weapon is enough?
So (no surprise) I think the first interpretation is sound, and a shield used to bash therefore an explicit exception to not having a dedicated main or off hand. When a police officer tells me "You can cross the highway, using the pedestrian underpass" I don't take it as permission to cross the highway wherever I like, thanking him for allowing me to even use the undercrossing.
On another note, sorry to the OP for derailing the thread like this, some nice numbers and analyses, thanks for the work!
|
So (no surprise) I think the first interpretation is sound, and a shield used to bash therefore an explicit exception to not having a dedicated main or off hand. When a police officer tells me "You can cross the highway, using the pedestrian underpass" I don't take it as permission to cross the highway wherever I like, thanking him for allowing me to even use the undercrossing.
lol!
When you find the language that says "you can ONLY bash as an off-hand attack" let me know, because I ain't seeing it. Without that, all you've got is the OPTION of doing the off-hand attack, hence use of the word 'can' and not 'can only'.
If you don't attack with the other hand, by the rules, your one attack is a primary attack, and that can be a bash. ANd if a bash can be a primary attack some of the time, it can be the primary all of the time.
Any weapon usable in the off hand can be used instead as the primary hand. There is no 'handedness'. As long as you take the size considerations into account, you're golden, and it applies to shields.
==Aelryinth
Are you saying that if someone TWF's they can bash as the primary attack? I think an issue here is that some people are not differentiating when they are talking about TWF, and when they are talking about using only the shield.
When you two weapon fight, you select one weapon as primary, and one weapon as secondary.
If I have a dagger+1, Orcbane, and a shortsword +2 in the other, and I'm fighting orcs, rather abruptly I'm going to be making that dagger primary.
there is nothing in the rules that says this is wrong. You can do it with dagger and longsword if you like...you'll take a heftier penalty, but you can do it.
And there's nothing in the rules that disallows a shield bash as a primary attack. So, yes, you could make the shield primary and your kukri secondary, at will. Use the more effective weapon for the job.
==Aelryinth
|
|
And there's nothing in the rules that disallows a shield bash as a primary attack. So, yes, you could make the shield primary and your kukri secondary, at will. Use the more effective weapon for the job.
==Aelryinth
There is something in the rules that disallow shield bash as a primary attack (PRPG p.152/153; for some reason I know these two bloody pages by heart now), but you refuse to care about the rules. Your choice, your game. Just stop beating that dead horse and live happily with your own house rule.
When you two weapon fight, you select one weapon as primary, and one weapon as secondary.
If I have a dagger+1, Orcbane, and a shortsword +2 in the other, and I'm fighting orcs, rather abruptly I'm going to be making that dagger primary.
there is nothing in the rules that says this is wrong. You can do it with dagger and longsword if you like...you'll take a heftier penalty, but you can do it.
And there's nothing in the rules that disallows a shield bash as a primary attack. So, yes, you could make the shield primary and your kukri secondary, at will. Use the more effective weapon for the job.
==Aelryinth
The shield bash specially says it is an off-hand attack. There is no handiness as far as right and left hand aka weak or strong hand, which is what James(dev) was referring to, but there is handiness with regard to primary and off hands. Shield Bashes are limited to the off-hand. If the off-hand was not meant to be a limiter then why mention it? "You may attack with a shield(light or heavy)" would be all that is needed.
The shield bash specially says it is an off-hand attack. There is no handiness as far as right and left hand aka weak or strong hand, which is what James(dev) was referring to, but there is handiness with regard to primary and off hands. Shield Bashes are limited to the off-hand. If the off-hand was not meant to be a limiter then why mention it? "You may attack with a shield(light or heavy)" would be all that is needed.
i believe the wording that says ''You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon'' (which is a remnant from 3.5e, in which shield bash releated feats and thus shield releated combat wasn't this detailed) is meant merely as a remark that you can actually use your shield to hit people, which is naturally used for defense (and happens to be in your off hand).
i don't think it is intended as a limitation for off-hand attacks. it is just there to underline that this defensive equipment can also be used offensively. it is an awkward way to put it, i agree, but i think that's the RAI.
|
...Has left the thread.
My original intention when creating this thread was to examine the question "does shield master make fighting with a shield the only way to go if you are TWF?" I have proved (to my satisfaction) that it's not overwhelmingly powerful, it's just another playstyle option. Along the way we've found out
-that using a shield in your main hand is actually counterproductive even if your GM allows it.
-that Falcatas are enough of a DPR increase that if you're not focusing on critical feats you may want to consider dual-wielding them.
-perhaps more than any other build, Shield Master is extremely dependent on what your level is.
Feel free to continue this thread in whatever direction you desire, I'll be back with another analysis at some point in the future.
There is something in the rules that disallow shield bash as a primary attack (PRPG p.152/153; for some reason I know these two bloody pages by heart now), but you refuse to care about the rules. Your choice, your game. Just stop beating that dead horse and live happily with your own house rule.And there's nothing in the rules that disallows a shield bash as a primary attack. So, yes, you could make the shield primary and your kukri secondary, at will. Use the more effective weapon for the job.
==Aelryinth
Your 'rule' ALLOWS shields as an off-hand attack. There is nothing there that limits it to them.
The rules logic that you can switch handedness of which weapon is primary takes precedence...there is nothing there disallowing a shield to be used as the primary attack.
By your rules, if the shield was the only weapon you had, you would have to use it as an off-hand attack, which is nonsense...it would be your only attack,a primary weapon, and things would progress from there.
I'm not the one who doesn't care about the rules on this. You're just clinging to one sentence and ignoring everything else you don't like.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
prpg p.152/153 is what I go by, and if you study the shield feats chain carefully, you'll understand the logic behind the reason why these feats are so good (i.e. to overcome the penalties associated with always using them as an off-hand)
If you still don't believe this as fact, ask yourself "why isn't there a similar feat tree for other, non-shield off-hand weapons?"
Because other, non-shield weapons don't suck quite so bad as weapons.
Because other, non-shield weapons don't provide an AC bonus when not used as weapons.
Because sword and shield as a TWF damage form absolutely blows without them, and is the worst combat style for the game.
Because SAS TWF is so bloody feat intensive, it better be absolutely awesome if you can do it effectively, because it's pretty much all you can do.
Because from a cost basis, paying for two weapons AND a shield puts the SAS style even further in the hole.
TWF's who are smart can dual wield, at the least, and right from the beginning. You can't do that too effectively with a shield.
Asked and answered many times, long, long ago.
==Aelryinth
By your rules, if the shield was the only weapon you had, you would have to use it as an off-hand attack, which is nonsense
If by 'nonsense' you mean 'the way the rules are actually written' then that statement would be correct.
You're free to argue that it's illogical or that you don't like it, but that's what it says.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
the way the rules are written is that you "CAN" use it as an off-hand attack, not that you "ARE ONLY ALLOWED" to do so.
So, yes, ridiculous.
===Aelryinth
Sorry dude, the designers have stated it's offhand only, if you TWF with a shield.
RAW (arguably) don't say you can't use your primary.
Doesn't say a dead character can take actions either...
The shield bash specially says it is an off-hand attack. There is no handiness as far as right and left hand aka weak or strong hand, which is what James(dev) was referring to, but there is handiness with regard to primary and off hands. Shield Bashes are limited to the off-hand. If the off-hand was not meant to be a limiter then why mention it? "You may attack with a shield(light or heavy)" would be all that is needed.i believe the wording that says ''You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon'' (which is a remnant from 3.5e, in which shield bash releated feats and thus shield releated combat wasn't this detailed) is meant merely as a remark that you can actually use your shield to hit people, which is naturally used for defense (and happens to be in your off hand).
i don't think it is intended as a limitation for off-hand attacks. it is just there to underline that this defensive equipment can also be used offensively. it is an awkward way to put it, i agree, but i think that's the RAI.
Why add the word "off-hand" for no reason what so ever when that word has a specific meaning?
That is like if I say "you can drive my blue car to the store" if I will also allow you to drive my red car. Why not just say you can drive my car if there is no restriction intended?
Sorry dude, the designers have stated it's offhand only, if you TWF with a shield.
RAW (arguably) don't say you can't use your primary.
Doesn't say a dead character can take actions either...
We are on the same side, but you might need a quote about the developer statement.
Seems to me that, and I think that's what James Jacobs tried to state, the RAI is :
- If you attack solely with a shield you can shield bash and it is considered a main weapon.
- If you two weapon fight then if you want to use shield bash your shield has to be considered your off-hand weapon.
Example : My Calistria Rogue/Priest currently wield a whip in hand and a heavy shield in the other.
She never two weapon fight (ie : use her two weapons in the same round) so che can weapon bash using the heavy shield as her main weapon... If she take a dagger in place of her whip and try to use both the shield and the dagger at the same time she has to use the shield as the off hand weapon...
That is a usable interpretation and compromise, Loengrin.
But there is nothing in the rules that restricts a weapon used in the off hand from being a weapon used in the primary hand. A bashing shield is a weapon...it can go either way. The only restrictions on off-hand are 'weight' restrictions of light or not light weapons, determining the TH penalty.
And that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
|
|
yeah! lol!!! THIS would be sooooo kewwwwlll!!! awesome! amazingz! yayyyyyyyyyyy!
please DM pretty pleasssse!!! I will make him a minotaur robot too but I swearz that I willz make a super dupber background storry manz!
That is a usable interpretation and compromise, Loengrin.
But there is nothing in the rules that restricts a weapon used in the off hand from being a weapon used in the primary hand. A bashing shield is a weapon...it can go either way. The only restrictions on off-hand are 'weight' restrictions of light or not light weapons, determining the TH penalty.
And that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
So the word "off-hand" is there(in the shield bash area or the shield area) for no reason at all since the shield is already listed as a weapon, and you can use any one-handed weapon in your off-hand anyway?
What I am hearing is that the specific statement is not meant to over ride the general rule. That just does not make sense to me. It is like a special rule telling me I can cast magic missile as a sorcerer when it is already on my spell list.
I understand that you are focused on the word "can", but why use a specific game term(off-hand) to tell you that you can do something that you can already do by the rules anyway?
damn those female avatars... perhaps for the best anyhow, as my wife wouldn't allow a girlfriend either! :)
O_o so.. you are assuming I'm actually a giant eye?
;)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
That is a usable interpretation and compromise, Loengrin.
But there is nothing in the rules that restricts a weapon used in the off hand from being a weapon used in the primary hand. A bashing shield is a weapon...it can go either way. The only restrictions on off-hand are 'weight' restrictions of light or not light weapons, determining the TH penalty.
And that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
So the word "off-hand" is there(in the shield bash area or the shield area) for no reason at all since the shield is already listed as a weapon, and you can use any one-handed weapon in your off-hand anyway?
What I am hearing is that the specific statement is not meant to over ride the general rule. That just does not make sense to me. It is like a special rule telling me I can cast magic missile as a sorcerer when it is already on my spell list.
I understand that you are focused on the word "can", but why use a specific game term(off-hand) to tell you that you can do something that you can already do by the rules anyway?
Why indeed?
Because people would question if you had to use it in the same hand you were using it for defense, or if you use it as a weapon would you have to make it the primary weapon? Or not a shield at all?Realize that however you phrase it, unless you get into a lot of words, it's going to get confusing. Basically, this isn't an 'exception' rule - it's clarifying that you CAN use a shield in the off hand, it doesn't have to be the primary weapon OR the only weapon, and you can thus do this while TWF. It doesn't say the normal rules don't apply, it's just validating that they do! (because someone would be sure to venture otherwise)
==Aelryinth
That is a usable interpretation and compromise, Loengrin.
But there is nothing in the rules that restricts a weapon used in the off hand from being a weapon used in the primary hand. A bashing shield is a weapon...it can go either way. The only restrictions on off-hand are 'weight' restrictions of light or not light weapons, determining the TH penalty.
And that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
So the word "off-hand" is there(in the shield bash area or the shield area) for no reason at all since the shield is already listed as a weapon, and you can use any one-handed weapon in your off-hand anyway?
What I am hearing is that the specific statement is not meant to over ride the general rule. That just does not make sense to me. It is like a special rule telling me I can cast magic missile as a sorcerer when it is already on my spell list.
I understand that you are focused on the word "can", but why use a specific game term(off-hand) to tell you that you can do something that you can already do by the rules anyway?
Why indeed?
Because people would question if you had to use it in the same hand you were using it for defense, or if you use it as a weapon would you have to make it the primary weapon? Or not a shield at all?Realize that however you phrase it, unless you get into a lot of words, it's going to get confusing. Basically, this isn't an 'exception' rule - it's clarifying that you CAN use a shield in the off hand, it doesn't have to be the primary weapon OR the only weapon, and you can thus do this while TWF. It doesn't say the normal rules don't apply, it's just validating that they do! (because someone would be sure to venture otherwise)
==Aelryinth
+1
Also; this subject has come up so often that it is insane. Why haven't we gotten some sort of official word on it yet?
That is a usable interpretation and compromise, Loengrin.
But there is nothing in the rules that restricts a weapon used in the off hand from being a weapon used in the primary hand. A bashing shield is a weapon...it can go either way. The only restrictions on off-hand are 'weight' restrictions of light or not light weapons, determining the TH penalty.
And that's really all there is to it.
==Aelryinth
So the word "off-hand" is there(in the shield bash area or the shield area) for no reason at all since the shield is already listed as a weapon, and you can use any one-handed weapon in your off-hand anyway?
What I am hearing is that the specific statement is not meant to over ride the general rule. That just does not make sense to me. It is like a special rule telling me I can cast magic missile as a sorcerer when it is already on my spell list.
I understand that you are focused on the word "can", but why use a specific game term(off-hand) to tell you that you can do something that you can already do by the rules anyway?
Why indeed?
Because people would question if you had to use it in the same hand you were using it for defense, or if you use it as a weapon would you have to make it the primary weapon? Or not a shield at all?Realize that however you phrase it, unless you get into a lot of words, it's going to get confusing. Basically, this isn't an 'exception' rule - it's clarifying that you CAN use a shield in the off hand, it doesn't have to be the primary weapon OR the only weapon, and you can thus do this while TWF. It doesn't say the normal rules don't apply, it's just validating that they do! (because someone would be sure to venture otherwise)
==Aelryinth
+1
Also; this subject has come up so often that it is insane. Why haven't we gotten some sort of official word on it yet?
That is a question I don't have an answer too, but I did say I would not harrass them about FAQ's or errata until after Gencon. I am also hoping the next errata document/core book version does not come out until after Gencon either so it can be up to date.
|
|
Guys: if you want to use a shield as a main hand attack (and not take the usual mandatory offhand penalty for shield bashing) the only known way I've seen it in the rules is via the Taldan Rondelero fighter archetype (Pathfinder Companion: Inner Sea Primer)
Strong Swing (Ex): At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1
bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata
and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand.
These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond
5th. With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate
between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack.
This does not grant additional attacks or This ability replaces weapon
training 1.
Guys: if you want to use a shield as a main hand attack (and not take the usual mandatory offhand penalty for shield bashing) the only known way I've seen it in the rules is via the Taldan Rondelero fighter archetype (Pathfinder Companion: Inner Sea Primer)
Strong Swing (Ex): At 5th level, a rondelero gains a +1
bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a falcata
and buckler that applies to attacks made by either hand.
These bonuses increase by +1 for every four levels beyond
5th. With a full-attack action, a rondelero may alternate
between using his falcata or his buckler for each attack.
This does not grant additional attacks or This ability replaces weapon
training 1.
No, I disagree, this is not the same at all. This introduces rules for Bucklers, which cannot normally be used to shield bash with.
Normal shields without spikes get the line of shield bashing feats to work with.
Normal shields WITH spikes only need the shield feats that allow you to attack with it without losing your AC for the turn.
You can in every turn declare which weapon is your main hand attack. If you desire to combine attacks with that weapon with other attacks available to you, the type of these attacks determine the off-hand penalties you have to suffer.
For example, using a Light weapon in your off-hand vs. using a One-hand weapon.
If you do not actually USE the other weapon in that round, then you suffer no penalties to attack.