RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sure you can wield a heavy shield with 2 hands....
You won't get AC from it though since it is not being WORN like a shield woudl be. Since a heavy shield is STRAPPED to ones arm to wear properly adn use a shield you could use it as it was intended, or use it 2 handed in a manner it was not intended to be used.
You're assuming that it's physically impossible to both wear it and two-hand attack with it. However, multiple methods of doing so have already been discussed, so that's not an issue.
If it bothers you, feel free to houserule it in your own game at home. Just be aware that it's completely legal by normal rules, so talk to your players ahead of time (if there's any reason to think they'll try it) so that they don't get a nasty surprise halfway through your campaign. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, he's simply referring to the rules that state that a shield is used with one hand and strapped to that arm, rules that state the singular quite clearly.
Nope. See my earlier post about verb agreement.
Or just keep ignoring anything that messes with your ideas.
That's exactly what he's doing.
Or just keep ignoring anything that messes with your ideas.
Agreed
I would do this in half a heartbeat but for one major complication: Clerics are not proficient with shields when used as weapons. Shield bashes are martial attacks.
It says clerics are proficient with shields. Doesn't say that its only for defense.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I would do this in half a heartbeat but for one major complication: Clerics are not proficient with shields when used as weapons. Shield bashes are martial attacks.It says clerics are proficient with shields. Doesn't say that its only for defense.
It lists Clerics as being proficient with simple weapons, and then their armor, and lists shields under the armor section of their proficiencies.
I'll admit thats possible its exceedingly poorly worded, though I dont think so, and hit FAQ though?
I'll admit that's possible its exceedingly poorly worded, though I dont think so, and hit FAQ though?
I don't think they were expecting the whole shield as a weapon phenomenon, so i don't think there is any RAI at all (hence i don't mind flirting with what could potentially be rules lawyering)
Is that all the way from page 1? Little late to the party, bud. ;) The rest of us have already moved on to interesting implementations of this.balogna. How many times have you seen the guy with the shield bracing against an attack and then putting his free hand up against the back of it for extra support. Cause Ive seen it a lot.
Slam with the point on the bottom, with your second hand applying leverage or force, or brace with your offhand, putting your whole body into the attack.Would they have done this if it was effective? Yes.
Did they do this? No.
I pull up a lot of tabs and then go through them. Sometimes I have to go do stuff inbetween, and it's easy for the topic to get away from what I'm seeing. But if people like you are the ones who have already "moved on" then I think i like it where I am.
OP, the answer is a firm yes, mechanically (no reason you can't), thematically (Captain America, anyone?) and realistically (The two handed shield bash is extremely common in western combat, and is still taught and used by police in riot control training today.)
Given the choice between just a shield and just a sword, I'd take the shield every time.
No, he's simply referring to the rules that state that a shield is used with one hand and strapped to that arm, rules that state the singular quite clearly.
However it doesn't prohibit Two-Hand Usage as does a Rapier ergo lack of prohibition in this case would be allowance.
RAW RAI
Heavy Shield = ONE HANDED WEAPON
One Handed Weapon = One OR two hand use
/thread
Just stop arguing with the uncreative bunch, if they want to restrict themselves fine.
OP, the answer is a firm yes, mechanically (no reason you can't), thematically (Captain America, anyone?) and realistically (The two handed shield bash is extremely common in western combat, and is still taught and used by police in riot control training today.)
Given the choice between just a shield and just a sword, I'd take the shield every time.
THANK YOU! Someone knows their history.
But if people like you are the ones who have already "moved on" then I think i like it where I am.I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this statement. Hopefully something good?
Aye
No, he's simply referring to the rules that state that a shield is used with one hand and strapped to that arm, rules that state the singular quite clearly.However it doesn't prohibit Two-Hand Usage as does a Rapier ergo lack of prohibition in this case would be allowance.
Still wondering about this falcon.
No, he's simply referring to the rules that state that a shield is used with one hand and strapped to that arm, rules that state the singular quite clearly.
However it doesn't prohibit Two-Hand Usage as does a Rapier ergo lack of prohibition in this case would be allowance.
Still wondering about this falcon.
Really. The rules don't prohibit you holding your breath to commit suicide either, although common sense might tell you that you'll pass out before you die. The argument that because the rules don't actively prohibit something it must be allowed is, well, a bit silly. The whole point of having a DM is so someone can apply a little common sense.
The use of a shield "two handed" (as in riot shields mentioned above) is not a "shield bash". The intention is to force your opponent to move. It is a bull rush in Pathfinder parlance more than anything else. A shield bash involves swinging the shield out and striking with it. It is an attempt to damage your opponent, not force him to move. As you move the shield (strapped to one arm) away from your body you are moving it away from your free hand and eliminating the free hand as a useful method of adding force to the strike. Using two hands on a weapon to gain additional damage is based on the ability to use both hands to grip the weapon. To effectively use two hands on a shield you would need to unstrap it, hold it out and away from the body in two hands. And then beat on them with it :) It would be an improvised weapon at best at that point. And a remarkably clumsy one at that. You'd be better off with a stick. Or a bar stool. You can do some real damage with one of those.
It is a fantasy game. You can do anything that the rules allow. And your DM. The rules, as massive as they are, would need to be the size of a modern law code to cover every eventuality. I doubt any of us want that. So, feel free to try this out, but I'd check with your DM first. If it was me I'd say no. Ymmv. And your DMs too :)
I was using the rapier to point out that it is the only weapon that prohibts two handed use other that the light weapon category.
As far as using it i agree you would prolly not strap it on but I would think the damage wouldnt be any less if you bashed with it like the Cavieler from the DnD cartoon.
As far as using it i agree you would prolly not strap it on but I would think the damage wouldnt be any less if you bashed with it like the Cavieler from the DnD cartoon.
I agree. It ceases to be armor and becomes a rather inefficient weapon. Given shields weren't designed to be used in this way I'd say it would be an improvised weapon if used in this manner. If you have it strapped on and you shield bash with it then it's being used as it should be. Martial weapon at that point.
I think you need to distinguish between it being used as a weapon or a shield. If the shield was equipped as a shield (strapped to the arm) you would follow shield bash rules. I would allow a shield to be used as an "improvised weapon" wielded with 2 hands to get the 1 1/2 str bonus but at that point it couldn't be equipped as a shield and if they wanted to use it again I would make the have to utilize the time it takes to re-equip it for the shield bonus.
Exactly.
A shield is noted as a weapon, with stats and all. Not an improvised weapon. All the crazy weapons introduced, and a shield is the most disputed. Why? It works, and in a world where you can walk on water, and turn water into wine, two handing a shield is not so far out.
Using it in a way it was not designed for makes it an improvised weapon imo. Like trying to do non-lethal damage with a regular lethal weapon nets you a -4 to hit (PF RPG Core page 191). Using it strapped on is the norm. That's what it's designed for. Taking it off and using it like a large clumsy blunt object to beat on someone two handed is not the norm for a heavy sheild. Improvised weapons (and apparently weapons used in irregular ways - like using a lethal weapon to do non-lethal damage) take a -4 to hit. I could go for the one and a half times strength bonus for damage when used this way (2 handed as a blunt object).
I'm not too big on the crazy weapons either btw :D
The problem is not that using it this way is fantastic, like walking on water etc., but that the use of a shield is within the normal range of human experience and history. Given that, people tend to expect it to behave "realistically" (whatever that may amount to in a FRPG).
*edit* Improvised weapons can be a blast btw. I've had some truly glorious bar brawls in my game. Dozens of people involved. Beer steins, bar stools, broken bottles and human beings used as weapons. Among other things. The fatalities tend to be pretty limited due to low damages (and people using non-lethal damage) and the -4 to hit is offset by the lack of armor. Lets the PCs blow off steam, make friends / enemies, blow money (repair bills and fines), and burn off spare time (in the jail). A fun time for all. Well, except the watchmen who have to break it up and the tavernkeeper. They have no sense of humor about these things :)
Shields are real world weapons, and were not used two handed by men whose lives depended on them. It's not about imagination: you are into history and physics now, and are to an extent making a mockery of ancestral humans. You may as well be wielding a Bat'leth or whatever that stupid made up Star Trek weapon is that would get its wielder eviscerated in actual combat.I don't think you can logically compare ancestral humans to Pathfinder characters. Your typical Fighter, for example, has killed A LOT more enemies than your typical soldier. In fact they were lucky to have much training at all, and had a very, very short life expectancy since nearly any battlefield wound would lead to death by infection. PF PC's could very easily have a greater mastery over combat than real world humans would have ever had the chance to develop.
Besides, Monks? Where's the basis for THAT in the real world? Did any civilization EVER place unarmed, unarmored warriors on the battlefield? No. Further, since firearms exist in the setting, why isn't it game over for plate? Because IRL it was. Pronto.
It doesn't match, and that's probably okay.
Actually, combat training for warriors was very common. Only peasant conscript types would be untrained, and even then they often had militia-style drills to whip them into shape a bit.
Also, plate armor and guns lived side-by-side for quite a while- on the order of several hundred years.
To the OP- yes it works, but it is silly if someone wants to use it as a primary weapon. As a DM, I would allow it for a rare occasion, but tell my players to stop being stupid if they wanted to do it all the time.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, let's review a couple of things here:
1) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means we're supposed to be talking about how the rules work. Acceptable answers are "legal", "not legal", or "unsure" - and you can make logical cases to lead up to those conclusions. But keep your judgmental condemnation of the people interested in the query at hand to yourself. None of you are better than the people who want to shield bash two-handed, so stop making accusations and calling them stupid, etc.
2) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means any "I wouldn't allow that at MY table" statements (or similar) belong elsewhere (like, say, the houserule section, or even the general discussion forum). If you want to point out that, based on your keen GMing instincts, it seems iffy and therefore people should check with their own GMs, fine. "Unsure" is an acceptable answer, as I stated above. But back it up with a reason to be unsure. "I don't like it", "I think it's stupid", and so forth are perfectly valid reasons for houserules, but not for answers in this section of the forum. Leave your personal preferences out of it - there are entire sections of the forums devoted to your preferences, so keep them there.
I didn't see this post for some time, but I have been asking questions on the subject.
First of all, I don't see how its silly for you to use both hands in a shield attack.
Think about it, you have a spike shield on your off hand, so you ram it in to someone, and then place your main hand on the back of the shield and push to make the spikes dig into them deeper. Would you not be using both hands at that point? Would that not make it stronger? Would the shield still not be covering you? Let me try right now. "Picks up martial arts shield pad", hey, it has more force behind it when I push with my right hand while having the straps on my left hand. Clearly I am breaking physics.
Would you be better off using a sword, probably, but flavor is what makes RP games fun.
One thing I never liked about forums if min/maxing "optimizing" vs versatility. Someone who is an ac tank using shield, which btw, is apparently a bad idea for higher levels since AC doesn't matter after level x, and dex base heroes can get higher ac at a much quicker rate, so on and so forth. Shields are already considered weak. You are weaker in damage, but you are more versatile. You are someone with high AC that can still do damage.
Shields have extremely weak damage and critical potential, so there shouldn't be any arguing that this somehow breaks the game. You also Have to have a few good feats to make this even work. Improve shield bash, two weapon fighting, shield proficiency. All for what? 1.5 more attack and damage on a off-hand shield attack?
How many characters are going to have the strength and dex needed to have both TWF and shield basing to make this work? I know they go hand and hand, but stat wise, only a few classes could consider this. Considering you would be giving up more useful abilities, like say, having a rapier or a scimitar with improve crit, 15-20, that would give you a free shield bash every 3 in ten attacks. Maybe you can get double slice so you can just get a 1.5 strength bonus on both off and main hand damage.
Your still using a shield, that's amazing damage right there :( . Not to mention feat costly.
Give martial characters this edge I say. Let Captain America be Captain America. They still can't fly. They still can't stop time.
In the case of cleric, I think I would be more afraid of a full plate cleric with a tower shield and warhammer, then one using both hands on a heavy shield.
So basically, what I'm saying is that your versatility had a pay off. Less damage, more AC, but you still do "ok" damage.
How I see it, you would be creating a "Mario" character. Which is the bane of most optimizers. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllStats?from=Main.TheMari o
|
+1 @ most of what Lockgo said (note that even with double slice you don't get more the 1.0* strength on each weapon, unless you do the evidently controversial TWF + THF combo)
A character that uses a shield for both defense and offense is NOT going to be optimal. Ever. It just won't happen. The shield doesn't have the critical, and at high levels critical is king. If they do the TWFing route with a good critical weapon, it still won't be optimal because they're stat-splitting.
Let "Captain America" have his fun.
On a side note to this - okay, it's only slightly related, but since we're talking about shield usage anyway I think it would be better to throw it in here than to open a new thread.
Now that shield bashes are no longer necessarily off-hand attacks, some questions arose to me in conjunction with my phalanx soldier (using reach polearms one-handed plus shield).
1.) When do you define what's off-hand and what's main hand? a) Once at character creation or b) can you change that whenever you want or c) whatever you make the first attack with in a given round is considered main hand?
2.) With BAB +6/+1 and TWF (reach polearm plus shield), when I have an adjacent opponent, and I make a full attack, do I get... a) one shield bash as an off-hand attack, or b) two SBs as main hand attacks, or c) two SBs as main hand attacks and one shield bash as an off-hand attack, or d) two SBs as off-hand attacks, or e) three SBs as off-hand attacks?
1) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means we're supposed to be talking about how the rules work. Acceptable answers are "legal", "not legal", or "unsure" - and you can make logical cases to lead up to those conclusions. But keep your judgmental condemnation of the people interested in the query at hand to yourself. None of you are better than the people who want to shield bash two-handed, so stop making accusations and calling them stupid, etc.
Acceptable answers INCLUDE legal, not legal, unsure. I think that technically legal but cheesey and possibly legal but not how i think it is certainly have a place.
For example, a halfling dual wielding gargantuan pistols. Rules legal. Is there anything wrong with pointing out that the devs were either on crack or missed a rule at the time, so that no, such an absurdity wouldn't take place at my table? I think that can be PART of a ruling but shouldn't be the sum total.
1.) When do you define what's off-hand and what's main hand? a) Once at character creation or b) can you change that whenever you want or c) whatever you make the first attack with in a given round is considered main hand?
Main hand and offhand are only relevant when using the two weapon fighting mechanic (whether you're fighting with a weapon in each hand or not) Everyone is technically ambidextrous, so if you have a mace in one hand and a short sword in the other, and a +6/+1 bab, you can attack with one weapon and then the other with no penalty.
2.) With BAB +6/+1 and TWF (reach polearm plus shield), when I have an adjacent opponent, and I make a full attack, do I get... a) one shield bash as an off-hand attack, or b) two SBs as main hand attacks, or c) two SBs as main hand attacks and one shield bash as an off-hand attack, or d) two SBs as off-hand attacks, or e) three SBs as off-hand attacks?
Two shield bashes as main hand attacks. You could choose to two weapon fight but unless you're going to 5 foot step at some point or have a foe 10 feet away you wouldn't get anything out of it.
|
|
1) This is the "Rules Questions" board. That means we're supposed to be talking about how the rules work. Acceptable answers are "legal", "not legal", or "unsure" - and you can make logical cases to lead up to those conclusions. But keep your judgmental condemnation of the people interested in the query at hand to yourself. None of you are better than the people who want to shield bash two-handed, so stop making accusations and calling them stupid, etc.Acceptable answers INCLUDE legal, not legal, unsure. I think that technically legal but cheesey and possibly legal but not how i think it is certainly have a place.
For example, a halfling dual wielding gargantuan pistols. Rules legal. Is there anything wrong with pointing out that the devs were either on crack or missed a rule at the time, so that no, such an absurdity wouldn't take place at my table? I think that can be PART of a ruling but shouldn't be the sum total.
I think legal, but not cheesy. There's nothing odd about someone putting a piece of metal between them and their opponent, and ramming them. The extra hand isn't really for power so much as stabilizing/guiding the power from the legs and torso when doing this.
Is it unusual? Sure. Is it an unrealistic fighting style? Quite (though I'm no expert). Is it something real people can do? Yes.
The gargantuan pistol situation isn't really a fair comparison as it implies that there is a munchkin aspect to the shield situation. The "two-hand a shield" maneuver will never net the person as much effectiveness as just picking up a weapon for that hand, even if only because of critical. It also causes them to put all their eggs in one basket, equipment wise, leaving them a prime target for sunder (a single sunder can apply penalties to both offense and defense, even if you don't destroy the object entirely).
In fact, the only classes I can see benefiting from this are Cleric, Oracle and Paladin, and only because of casting (free action to switch the shield to one-handed for casting). And for these, the Cleric and Oracle generally use weapons as a last resort, and the Paladin is WAY better off doing something else.
|
|
Shields are real world weapons, and were not used two handed by men whose lives depended on them. It's not about imagination: you are into history and physics now, and are to an extent making a mockery of ancestral humans. You may as well be wielding a Bat'leth or whatever that stupid made up Star Trek weapon is that would get its wielder eviscerated in actual combat.I don't think you can logically compare ancestral humans to Pathfinder characters. Your typical Fighter, for example, has killed A LOT more enemies than your typical soldier. In fact they were lucky to have much training at all, and had a very, very short life expectancy since nearly any battlefield wound would lead to death by infection. PF PC's could very easily have a greater mastery over combat than real world humans would have ever had the chance to develop.
Besides, Monks? Where's the basis for THAT in the real world? Did any civilization EVER place unarmed, unarmored warriors on the battlefield? No. Further, since firearms exist in the setting, why isn't it game over for plate? Because IRL it was. Pronto.
It doesn't match, and that's probably okay.
Please, don't take for granted a 100% mortality from battle wounds. it was high but people was capable to survive to even grievous wounds and return to fight when healed.
A noble for most of the middle ages was required to be thoroughly trained in combat. That was basically the reason why nobility was instituted.
They were the guys with enough resources to buy the needed equipment and have the needed time for training without the need to spend time rising crops . That allowed them to train for war and protect and lead the other people in batte. In exchange the other people had the duty to keep the noble feed and equipped. Step by step this role evolved and changed, but that is its origin.
Note that a Roman legionary had a minimum term of service of six year. They were highly trained.
The image of the "untrained mob in war" is born primarily by the battle descriptions of the literate of the medieval times, i.e. monks without any military training.
They hadn't the knowledge and capacity to recognize a trained army from an untrained one. The Arab chroniclers during the Crusades where impressed by the discipline of the European armies, and they were often man at arms.
All the above said, Pathfinder character use weapons that haven't ever seen war use and some that, AFAIK, never existed (armour spikes? those are born by some comics image).
So one more weapon that never was used in that fashion unless the wielder had lost all of his weapons and was desperate isn't a problem.
Just to be clear, 2 handed shield bashing as your main weapon was a desperation tactic.
Shield bashing as a secondary weapon was widely used.
sorry if i gave the wrong impression that two handing a shield was cheesy: i don't. I just think that "cheeeese" is an acceptable answer in a rules forum, or at least an acceptable asterix to slap on an explanation.
|
|
I might be wrong, but isn't the whole "i want to use my shield as a main weapon, with the possibility to apply 1.5x STR mod" the way to go for any Battle Cleric worth its salt?I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I have seen a PC who used a shield 2-handed and it wasn't as dumb as it thought.
The PC had a spiked large shield with the Bashing enhancement, so it had a base damage of 2d6 (1d6 base, with two "virtual" size increases). There aren't that many weapons out there that do 2d6+1.5*Str mod damage and that still allow you to get the AC benefit of a shield.
If you attack with the shield you don't get the shield benefit to AC.
Some poster seem to have problems with that so:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light 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.
Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.
The piece even specify what kind of weapon is a shield: martial, so a cleric need to take a weapon proficiency to use it without drawbacks.
|
|
I might be wrong, but isn't the whole "i want to use my shield as a main weapon, with the possibility to apply 1.5x STR mod" the way to go for any Battle Cleric worth its salt?I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I have seen a PC who used a shield 2-handed and it wasn't as dumb as it thought.
The PC had a spiked large shield with the Bashing enhancement, so it had a base damage of 2d6 (1d6 base, with two "virtual" size increases). There aren't that many weapons out there that do 2d6+1.5*Str mod damage and that still allow you to get the AC benefit of a shield.
If you attack with the shield you don't get the shield benefit to AC.
Some poster seem to have problems with that so:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See “shield, light” on Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light 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.Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.The piece even specify what kind of weapon is a shield: martial, so a cleric need to take a weapon proficiency to use it without drawbacks.
Take Improved Shield Bash. AC Problem solved.
Proficiency being required makes this even less appetizing as an option. Instead of going 2 feats in, I'm pretty sure the cleric or oracle would just take a spiked gauntlet as an emergency weapon. Not as effective, but doesn't take feats and doesn't get in the way.
Basically, we're down to this style being used by a Captain America style character. And I'm fine with that. If anything, I'd worry about them being under-powered.
I need to take my threadjacking a bit further...
1.) When do you define what's off-hand and what's main hand? a) Once at character creation or b) can you change that whenever you want or c) whatever you make the first attack with in a given round is considered main hand?
Main hand and offhand are only relevant when using the two weapon fighting mechanic (whether you're fighting with a weapon in each hand or not) Everyone is technically ambidextrous, so if you have a mace in one hand and a short sword in the other, and a +6/+1 bab, you can attack with one weapon and then the other with no penalty.
Hmkay. Is there a rules quote for that anywhere?
And since TWF gives one extra off-hand attack... I suppose you have to decide wether a weapon gets counted as main or off-hand at the first attack you make with it in a given round (no off-hand attack with a weapon you used as a main attack)?
So if I used my two main attacks for the mace and the sword, I could only make an off-hand attack with, like, a kick - otherwise I'd have to use both main hand attacks with one weapon and the off-hand attack with the other, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
sorry if i gave the wrong impression that two handing a shield was cheesy: i don't. I just think that "cheeeese" is an acceptable answer in a rules forum, or at least an acceptable asterix to slap on an explanation.
I would agree that it can be a relevant addendum, since eyebrow-raising things might get vetoed by GMs and it's a courtesy to alert the player to that possibility. I was more trying to head off the people who were either (A) replying with nothing more than the claim of cheese (and possibly twisting/fabricating rules to make it look illegal after the fact) or (B) calling "cheese" in a manner that insulted anyone and everyone who liked (or even believed in the legality of) the idea presented. Or, in some cases, a mixture of A and B. Those kinds of posts have no place here.
and would look cool and flavorful.
No, it really wouldn't.
Hmkay. Is there a rules quote for that anywhere?
I'll see if i can find it. It falls out of the lack of an offhand rule for anything but the two weapon fighting mechanics.
And since TWF gives one extra off-hand attack... I suppose you have to decide wether a weapon gets counted as main or off-hand at the first attack you make with it in a given round (no off-hand attack with a weapon you used as a main attack)?
Right. No attacking sans penalties and changing your mind later. If you have to take a penalty you have to declare the penalty before the first attack
So if I used my two main attacks for the mace and the sword, I could only make an off-hand attack with, like, a kick - otherwise I'd have to use both main hand attacks with one weapon and the off-hand attack with the other, right?
There is, technically, no rule allowing you to use your unarmed strikes as an offhand weapon. The closest rule is armored spikes. You would have to declare the use of two weapon fighting in advance, attack with melee hand 1, attack offhand with the spikes, then attack with melee hand 2 at the lower BAB bonus and the two weapon fighting penalties.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of a shield "two handed" (as in riot shields mentioned above) is not a "shield bash". The intention is to force your opponent to move. It is a bull rush in Pathfinder parlance more than anything else. A shield bash involves swinging the shield out and striking with it. It is an attempt to damage your opponent, not force him to move. As you move the shield (strapped to one arm) away from your body you are moving it away from your free hand and eliminating the free hand as a useful method of adding force to the strike. Using two hands on a weapon to gain additional damage is based on the ability to use both hands to grip the weapon. To effectively use two hands on a shield you would need to unstrap it, hold it out and away from the body in two hands. And then beat on them with it
Please note that the above quote is not a realistic portrayal of how riot shields are used in the real world.
The following are two real-world examples taken from the training that riot police undergo all around the world that refute the claim that using a shield in two hands is impractical.
1) A common attack against aggressive people is to push them back with the shield (as was mentioned), then follow up by gripping the upper side of the shield's arm loop (the one near the elbow) with the off hand, raising both hands up (as if defending from an upward attack) and then to bring both arms forward and down so as to slam the bottom edge of the shield into the enemy's face, arms or knees. It is an incredibly aggressive and effective maneuver, so much so that in america it is generally considered excessive force and only employed in the most dire circumstances. This is largely due to the fact that the focused edge of the shield is much more dangerous than the flat, and because of the extra force generated from a two handed overhead blow.
2) Another common tactic when a person is pressing forward against the shield is to pull backward sharply, causing the person to overbalance at the sudden removal of resistance, then to slam the shield back into place with the off-hand centered at face-level. The result is much the same as hitting someone in the head with an opening door. The addition of the second hand greatly increases the amount of force the person on the receiving end is hit with.
I hope these examples demonstrate how using a shield in two hands is both realistic and mechanically advantageous.
There is, technically, no rule allowing you to use your unarmed strikes as an offhand weapon -addendum, while your hands are full.
There is also no rule for a double off hander, such as dual wielding shortswords and then using either armor spikes or kicking.
If a GM allows the dire flail, two-bladed sword or orc double axe, the simulationist arguments become irrelevant.
For my own sanity I'm going to go ahead and assume that anyone who is arguing against two handing a shield wouldn't allow a dire flail in their game either. To each their own.
As a side note-
A dire flail with a long central haft and short chains is a perfectly viable weapon. When the 3.0 players handbook came out I built one and messed around with it with some training partners. Functionally it's just a pole-flail that is particularly good at defending against multiple opponents. Same with the double-sword. As long as the central haft is long enough it basically operates as a staff.
Double axes are just impossible though.
/side note.
