If you wield a shield in 2 hands, do you get 1 1 / 2 str to damage?


Rules Questions

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Mikaze wrote:
Don Walker wrote:
thepuregamer wrote:
... if you wield a shield in 2 hands, do you get 1 1/2 str to damage when you shield bash with it. Assume a heavy shield, since a heavy shield is listed as a one handed weapon when you bash with it.
You would if you play at my table.
Same'd.

Never! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to make a 3' tall humanoid wielding a double-axe go into a berzerker rage and kill a dragon that is eleventy times his size singlehandedly.

Translation: Yeah. At my table, go for it.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Axl wrote:

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.

I was surprised by your endorsement of the dire flail, so I looked into it further. It appears that some players object even to the game's depiction of swords, rapiers & maces.


Axl wrote:


I was surprised by your endorsement of the dire flail, so I looked into it further. It appears that some players object even to the game's depiction of swords, rapiers & maces.

Well, endorsement is a little strong. A dire flail wouldn't be my first choice, but it's not like they're caber-chucks or a parthinian pogo stick. They're usable with the right design and some getting used to.

Flails in general are a little weird and often depicted poorly. Flails are usually not short-handled and long-chained. Such a design increases the recovery time after a swing, and increases the likelihood of hitting yourself if things go wrong.

A long-handled, short-chained flail is a much better design and was historically extremely effective (very hard to defend against). A (functional) dire flail would just be a staff with a two-link chain on each end attached to an additional short length of weighted pole. Imagine a 3-section staff with a long middle. Spikes on striking surfaces optional.

As for the critiques in the thread you linked, it's just another example of inaccuracies stemming from designers not doing research on the real-world aspects of their games and giving us overly analytical and critical gamer-types something else to endlessly argue about.


cfalcon wrote:
Quote:
cfalcon... how does something requiring atleast 1 hand prevent you from using a 2nd hand to swing it?

Because the rules state it is held with one hand. Nothing about "at least". The rules state one hand, and so does, you know, logic.

Quote:
Anyway, I have gotten the confirmation I was looking for, now to make dumb stuff.

Dumb stuff that doesn't work by rules, gotcha. Well, it's your game, do as you like. Might want to wield some iron fish too. But don't make them magical, or anything that might work as suspension of disbelief.

Quote:
I find it very unimaginative of you to be unable to think of creative ways to use both hands on a shield.

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.

So tell me, will you, as the rules state (somewhat ahistorically), "strap the shield to your forearm"- of BOTH arms?
When it says "shield hand" and "grip it with your hand", where are you getting the plural? It's not "hand(s)" here.

Okay,seriously dude,reading through your posts so far,you obviously somehow cannot imagine something like this because it wasn't used in the real world.Was magic used in the real world? No.

THIS IS A FANTASY GAME.


sphar wrote:


Okay,seriously dude,reading through your posts so far,you obviously somehow cannot imagine something like this because it wasn't used in the real world.Was magic used in the real world? No.

THIS IS A FANTASY GAME.

I see this a lot in discussion threads and I'd like to point out that there's a flaw in the reasoning here.

See, the game is about half based on real world things. Saying that an argument about an aspect of the real-world side of the game is invalidated by the existence of the fantasy side can be something of a straw man.

See, he's not arguing how the shield interacts with magic. He's arguing about how people governed by heroic but real-world limits might wield a shield. To say that someone *can* two hand a shield because dragons exist is equally as ridiculous as saying that they *can't*.

Sorry to bash on you, Shpar. In this particular discussion we're both actually on the same side. You're just the latest to use the magic card in a situation that it isn't suited to and I had the time to say something about it.


Doomed Hero wrote:
sphar wrote:


Okay,seriously dude,reading through your posts so far,you obviously somehow cannot imagine something like this because it wasn't used in the real world.Was magic used in the real world? No.

THIS IS A FANTASY GAME.

I see this a lot in discussion threads and I'd like to point out that there's a flaw in the reasoning here.

See, the game is about half based on real world things. Saying that an argument about an aspect of the real-world side of the game is invalidated by the existence of the fantasy side can be something of a straw man.

See, he's not arguing how the shield interacts with magic. He's arguing about how people governed by heroic but real-world limits might wield a shield. To say that someone *can* two hand a shield because dragons exist is equally as ridiculous as saying that they *can't*.

Sorry to bash on you, Shpar. In this particular discussion we're both actually on the same side. You're just the latest to use the magic card in a situation that it isn't suited to and I had the time to say something about it.

I agree with Doomed Hero.

The problem with cfalcon is that he has rigid pre-conceptions of how a shield should work. He refuses to acknowledge the rules in the rulebook that contradict his opinion. Similarly, he refuses to engage in discussion with anyone who challenges his pre-conceptions.

Liberty's Edge

The way I would rule this:

* A shield is not designed to be used as a two-handed weapon; therefore it is an improvised weapon.

* Strength and Power Attack/Piranha Strike bonuses follow the rules for non-light and light weapons respectively with heavy and light shields (or bucklers).

* If it's a Quickdraw and/or throwing shield...yes, you can do those cool things you're thinking of.


A shield is not designed to be used as a two-handed weapon; therefore it is an improvised weapon.

That doesn't follow. A longsword is not designed as a two handed weapon, you can use it in two hands without any problem and you do in fact gain the 1.5X strength bonus.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

Please note that the above quote is not a realistic portrayal of how riot shields are used in the real world.

...

I hope these examples demonstrate how using a shield in two hands is both realistic and mechanically advantageous.

I have no problem with using a appositely designed shield, like a police riot shield or the German duel shields another poster cited, with two hands and getting both the 1,5 strength multiplier and the shield bonus to AC if you have the Improved shield Bash feat.

I will assume that any large shield build with the bashing property is build with this kind of manoeuvre in mind.

If the shield isn't appositely designed I will have a bit of trouble with allowing both benefits at the same time, but I would probably allow it simply because a feat is a significant cost. I would simply suggest to the player to upgrade to a "properly designed" shield after the battle end.

For sure he is always entitled to the 1,5 strength multiplier if he is using a large shield as a 2 handed weapon and forfeiting the shield bonus to AC. I don't see it as a "common" tactic on the battlefield, but nothing prohibit it in the game.


Ah, the simulationist arguments again.

I wonder if Mike Schneider and Diego Rossi allow dire flails, two-bladed swords & orc double axes in their game.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Axl wrote:

Ah, the simulationist arguments again.

I wonder if Mike Schneider and Diego Rossi allow dire flails, two-bladed swords & orc double axes in their game.

Ah, the "I haven't read the post " argument again.

Maybe you had a better reason for caustic comments if you did read the posts, instead of skimming them.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mike Schneider wrote:
A shield is not designed to be used as a two-handed weapon; therefore it is an improvised weapon.
That doesn't follow. A longsword is not designed as a two handed weapon....

OHRLLY???


Think those are closer to bastard swords than longswords.


Quote:
OHRLLY???

Ya, really.

1) those are bastard swords if not some fencing 2 handers. Historically they may have been called longswords, its not what D&D uses to describe a longsword.

2) Shields are 1 handed weapons.
You can use 1 handed weapons in two hands, even if they're not designed for it, unless it says otherwise (like the rapier). You can do this with longswords, clubs, heavy maces, morning star, shortspears,Battleaxes, Flails,Longswords, Heavy picks... you should be able to go right down the table and use shields the same way.

3) People have pointed out any number of mechanisms for plausibly doing this irl.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Axl wrote:

Ah, the simulationist arguments again.

I wonder if Mike Schneider and Diego Rossi allow dire flails, two-bladed swords & orc double axes in their game.

Ah, the "I haven't read the post " argument again.

You are mistaken.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
OHRLLY???

Ya, really.

1) those are bastard swords if not some fencing 2 handers. Historically they may have been called longswords, its not what D&D uses to describe a longsword.

Ya, really; they're "bastardswords" that do S or P and can be finessed two-handed like an Elven Curve Blade -- ?

:-P


Look, your video is cute, but those things are about a step up from a stage prop. They aren't made for real combat, and wouldn't do squat against someone in armor. Its no more a real sword than a fencing epee is an epee.

From, the pathfinder book.

Longsword: This sword is about 3-1/2 feet in length.

Unless the people in those video are midgets those swords are considerably longer. They also have elongated grips for two handed use, not something you put on the iconic D&D longsword.

the "ya really" and sarcasm really don't do anything for me. You're not making a point, you're not saying anything, or backing your opinion.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Look, your video is cute, but those things are about a step up from a stage prop. They aren't made for real combat, and wouldn't do squat against someone in armor. Its no more a real sword than a fencing epee is an epee.
They're dulled, but otherwise accurate representations of German longswords, which were wielded in exactly the manner portrayed (watch the middle of the video). (The most effective way of hurting someone in armor was to target vulnerable joint areas with piercing attacks, and put your weight into the strike by using both hands.)
Quote:
Longsword: This sword is about 3-1/2 feet in length.

I am fully aware of how goofy d20 is in regards to realistic depictions of actual historical weapons. Such as having "longswords" that aren't long.

A longsword (like a katana) is labeled a one-handed weapon because is can be used in one hand -- not because it is ideal to use it in one hand.


Quote:
They're dulled, but otherwise accurate representations of German longswords, which were wielded in exactly the manner portrayed (watch the middle of the video). (The most effective way of hurting someone in armor was to target vulnerable joint areas with piercing attacks, and put your weight into the strike by using both hands.)

The transition from field combat to fencing weapons happened with these swords as well. They appear too thin to be the real things, and the illustrations appear to be against people in regular clothes, not armor.

Quote:
Longsword: This sword is about 3-1/2 feet in length.
I am fully aware of how goofy d20 is in regards to realistic depictions of actual historical weapons. Such as having "longswords" that aren't long.

Ok, so if you knew my entire point was about the D&D mechanics of using a D&D longsword and (long list one one handed weapons here) why on earth did you deliberately equivocate to something that was NOT a D&D longsword?


I have an interesting solution maybe make a 2handed bashing shield as a separate shield and have them be rare.


... I missed you guys.


cfalcon wrote:
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.

Mighty high horse you are on up there.

Would you like medieval literary sources with two-handed shield usage? Let's start with the Saga of the People of Laxardal, where Bolli Thorleiksson uses his shield two-handed fighting Helgi Hardbeinsson.

Or would you prefer modern? Cops' riot shields are usually designed to be used with two hands.

Illustrations? A quick look on Google finds a pic from the Bayeux tapestry with a shield being wielded two-handed.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Coriat wrote:


Would you like medieval literary sources with two-handed shield usage? Let's start with the Saga of the People of Laxardal, where Bolli Thorleiksson uses his shield two-handed fighting Helgi Hardbeinsson.
Quote:
Then Lambi went in; he held his shield before him, and a drawn sword in his hand. In the nick of time Bolli pulled Footbiter out of the wound, whereat his shield veered aside so as to lay him open to attack. So Lambi made a thrust at him in the thigh, and a great wound that was. Bolli hewed in return, and struck Lambi's shoulder, and the sword flew down along the side of him, and he was rendered forthwith unfit to fight, and never after that time for the rest of his life was his arm anymore use to him. At this brunt Helgi, the son of Hardbien, rushed in with a spear, the head of which was an ell long, and the shaft bound with iron. When Bolli saw that he cast away his sword, and took his shield in both hands, and went towards the dairy door to meet Helgi. Helgi thrust at Bolli with the spear right through the shield and through him. Now Bolli leaned up against the dairy wall, and the men rushed into the dairy, Halldor and his brothers, to wit, and Thorgerd went into the dairy as well.

If I were to translate this in game term it would be something like:

- Helgi has a reach weapon that is very hard to sunder [the shaft bound with iron]
- Bolli use combat expertise with his shield while approaching him to try a bull rush
- Helgi sunder the shield and critically hit Bolli.

It seem exactly what I was saying a few post above: a last ditch use of the shield when other options fail.

The riot shield example is much more pertinent for the use of a shield as a primary weapon.

Liberty's Edge

I could see how a shield could be an improvised weapon for anyone not trained in using a shield. However using a shield is a lot less absorbing blows from opponents than it is actively parrying and deflecting attacks. As far as the martial uses for the shield go, the greeks and romans did. The 300 ended usign shields teeth and their nails at some point. I can't remember which, I believe it was Julius Ceasar, who turned the tied of a battle by fightign with two shields. That may be propoganda, however it's been nearly a decade since I read any roman military history. The Scots though used shield well into the incoportation of firearms into Napoleonic Warfare. Scottish shield use is far from conservative.

To avoid skirting too much into realism, a warrior is trained to use every implement of war into offense, That's why greaves and gauntlets are allowed to be treated as armed attacks. The same with shield bashes, though teh ruling of using the shield as an improvised martial weapon is silly to me because of that. Yes a shield can defend and parry and absord arroows, but it can also bludgeon, cut, and pierce depending on the design. blocking and parryign with marshall weapons is possible as well, Look at the way a dane axe is used in combat, or the way german sword styles ar so odd. the entire weapon's function is taken into account. Grappling with a flamberge is a sight to behold, as is watching a dane axe disarming and triping up upponents.

From personal experience I would two hand a shield the same reason i would a hafted weapon, more power and control. Note I did not say that I would lose any defense, In fact i'd argue that defense is better as you have both hands and arms to counter single handed attacks. Two limbs usually beat one. Though the offset is it's usually slower.That's moot because two hands on the shield would make overruns and bull rushes a bit easier. Myself though, I'm more likely to use it for trip attacks and then pummeling a down opponent. then again....i think like a linebaker in group combat.

I can't see any mechanical reason to deny strength and a half to shield's or two times strength to towershields. I'd even vote to give an advantage to bullrushes and overruns, especially if charging. The only problem I have is having proficiency in shield bashing, I think it should come with proficiency with the shield.

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / If you wield a shield in 2 hands, do you get 1 1 / 2 str to damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.