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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Like the title says, 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.


thepuregamer wrote:
Like the title says, 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.

No reason you shouldn't be able to. I would imagine it would be cool visuals too...


k, I just thought I would drop it into the rules forums real quick before I spend time on a build.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I don't think the rules block you from wielding a shield in two hands.

They should, of course.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I think a good example of this is on collegehumor. Look or google something like "Link doesn't take master sword" it's pretty funny and could easily be construed as him two handing the shield.


cfalcon wrote:

I don't think the rules block you from wielding a shield in two hands.

They should, of course.

Why can't you two hand a heavy shield?

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.

It isn't a huge stretch, and would look cool and flavorful.

Shadow Lodge

PFSRD wrote:
One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls.

Going with 'yes' as well. Surprised at the result of the rules search, but still.

Now, that's only because you specified that shield. A light shield changes the answer to 'no' due it being a light weapon.


cfalcon wrote:

I don't think the rules block you from wielding a shield in two hands.

They should, of course.

Not really necessary. Just laugh at players who want to go all shield without an actual weapon until they withdraw their request out of shame.

You might have to laugh at the guy for two hours straight, but that's nothing a little training cannot prepare you for!


Robert Jordan wrote:
I think a good example of this is on collegehumor. Look or google something like "Link doesn't take master sword" it's pretty funny and could easily be construed as him two handing the shield.

That it?

Yes, I did laugh. Does not bode well for any potential future request for a shield-only character.

Shadow Lodge

KaeYoss wrote:
Robert Jordan wrote:
I think a good example of this is on collegehumor. Look or google something like "Link doesn't take master sword" it's pretty funny and could easily be construed as him two handing the shield.

That it?

Yes, I did laugh. Does not bode well for any potential future request for a shield-only character.

With the right feats, that could be awesome. Particularly in a 'peace-bonded' campaign setting. Carry around a sword for looks, surrender it to the guard when asked to, beat them to a pulp with your +2 shield, take back your sword.

:)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
KrispyXIV wrote:
Why can't you two hand a heavy shield?

Was it done historically? No? But they DID have shields right? And two hands? This isn't a blade-shield, or a laser shield, or a magical attack shield, or anything, this is a mundane shield of the sort that ancestral humans had access to.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
It isn't a huge stretch, and would look cool and flavorful.

I would definitely never allow a player to do it. It's ludicrous.

-- Ok, now, looking more carefully at the rules, you can make a pretty strong argument that you can't do it.

Quote:
Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.

This flat out uses singular to describe hands. It also makes a prerequisite that it is "strapped to your forearm".

Now, maybe that's not compelling to you. Perhaps you can still describe a character as using both hands to attack with a shield. However:

Quote:
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.

The wording here is unequivocal: you use it as an off-hand weapon. Meaning, half your Str bonus and the attendant penalties to hit as if it were a one-handed weapon. Never gaining the 1.5x Str bonus of the weapon.

So by rules it could be done, but the mechanics would be the exact same as if you were one-handing the shield- meaning that the only reason you would two-hand the shield would be to look silly. It would offer no advantages over an empty mainhand.

(The rules for light shields contain the same restrictions)

So in addition to it being offensive, it has no mechanical benefit. Pathfinder rules: 1, silly shieldwielding: 0

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
cfalcon wrote:
Stuff about shields being off-hand weapons

FAQ!

Pathfinder Rules: 1
Failing to stay up to date: 0

;)


cfalcon wrote:


Quote:
Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.
The wording here is unequivocal: you use it as an off-hand weapon. Meaning, half your Str bonus and the attendant penalties to hit as if it were a...

cfalcon, you seem to have ignored the word "can". The word "can" does not prohibit all other uses.

A heavy shield is explicitly described as a melee one-handed weapon. A light shield is a melee light one-handed weapon. For attacking purposes, they follow the same rules as analogous weapons.

The heavy shield can be wielded with two hands to deal damage with one-and-a-half times strength bonus.

Anyway, Jiggy has helpfully pointed out an official FAQ.


Jiggy wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Stuff about shields being off-hand weapons

FAQ!

Pathfinder Rules: 1
Failing to stay up to date: 0

;)

yeah, if shields attacks couldn't be made outside of two-weapon fighting then this would be a pointless question. I thought this up after reading the faq. I was thinking of this as 2 handing a shield as your regular attack, not an off-hand attack.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Stuff about shields being off-hand weapons

FAQ!

Pathfinder Rules: 1
Failing to stay up to date: 0

;)

Fair point, you can mainhand it.

You still can't two-hand it though.

Quote:
A heavy shield is explicitly described as a melee one-handed weapon. A light shield is a melee light one-handed weapon. For attacking purposes, they follow the same rules as analogous weapons.

The rules for attacking with a shield are clear and spelled out (and changed a dash in the FAQ, which is also rules).

So it's still quite clear that you can't gain any benefit from two-handing a shield, again, by the same rules that allow you to attack with a shield in the first place.

I also don't see the line that says it is "explicitly described as a melee one-handed weapon". The line I quoted gives a condition under which you are "using it as an offhand weapon" and then following it up with "used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon". Pretty sure that the position on the table doesn't determine this.

Anyway, the rules state hand, singular, multiple times, and specify that it is offhand only. The FAQ states that it can also be used as a mainhand. Nothing allows you to two-hand it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Net effect: if the FAQ file ends up making two-handed shield usage a thing, I'm pretty sure that's a damned accident, but probably not one they'll fix soon enough. However, even with that, it's still not a thing you can do, by virtue of other rules in the same section (that I listed above).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

cfalcon wrote:
Anyway, the rules state hand, singular, multiple times, and specify that it is offhand only. The FAQ states that it can also be used as a mainhand. Nothing allows you to two-hand it.

Keep in mind a few things:

1. The FAQ I linked removes a line from the rules. So it's not that the rules say off-hand and the FAQ offers a singular exception. The rules have changed.

2. There's no such thing as off-hand or main-hand weapons, just off-hand and main-hand attacks. What you're wielding has nothing to do with which hand you're using.

3. The rules in the Equipment chapter (I'm almost off work, so you can dig up the text yourself, sorry) state that a one-handed weapon can be used two-handed to deal the extra damage.

Have fun!


here the shield is listed as a one-handed martial weapon on the table. I was thinking that as one-handed weapons can be wielded in 2 hands, that the heavy shield would benefit. Now just because 1 arm is required(it is strapped in), does this necessarily mean that you cannot add a 2nd hand to support the attack? I was thinking that you could.


cfalcon wrote:


I also don't see the line that says it is "explicitly described as a melee one-handed weapon".... Pretty sure that the position on the table doesn't determine this.

Is a dagger a light melee weapon, a one-handed melee weapon, or a two-handed melee weapon? What about a longsword? A falchion?

How did you find the answers to these questions from the rulebook?

Shadow Lodge

Axl wrote:
cfalcon wrote:


I also don't see the line that says it is "explicitly described as a melee one-handed weapon".... Pretty sure that the position on the table doesn't determine this.

Is a dagger a light melee weapon, a one-handed melee weapon, or a two-handed melee weapon? What about a longsword? A falchion?

How did you find the answers to these questions from the rulebook?

The easiest way is to look at how they're categorized. E.g. on the d20pfsrd, everything under the heading '(Simple) Light Melee Weapons' is a light melee weapon requiring Simple Weapon Proficiency.

Unfortunately, there's no 'stat block' for weapons. There really should be, or at least there should be a book printed that way as a purchasable option.


mcbobbo, I already know the answers to those questions. My questions are specifically directed at cfalcon, to prove a point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

Keep in mind a few things:

1. The FAQ I linked removes a line from the rules. So it's not that the rules say off-hand and the FAQ offers a singular exception. The rules have changed.

Sure. As an accidental consequence of SKR fixing the time when you can't effectively attack with your normal mainhand weapon, there's no restriction here.

But you still have the restriction above:

Quote:
Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.
Quote:
Have fun!

Your other points are irrelevant. I'm sad that the deletion of the off-hand restriction which was clearly meant for the times when you would gain an advantage for doing a shield bash with your off-hand, somehow is getting twisted into some mockery of combat.

The times when you would want to shield bash would include if your opponent would be vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, your weapon is locked up or disarmed, your shield is rendered extra effective with magic, or many other things. It's good that someone who may not have trained two-weapon fighting doesn't take minus a zillion in these cases. But the rules are still clear that you can hold your shield one-handed, and make no mention of two. Say, for instance, a long sword, has no such restrictions, and indeed, you can use two hands to wield it then. But a historical fighter deprived of his primary weapon and attacking with his shield would not somehow start two-handing it, in a brain-boggling explosion of un-logic. Especially not if, as a D&D/Pathfinder shield is, it was strapped to his left arm to begin with, such that he couldn't even add anything with his right hand to that strike.

So now we are at:

Pathfinder rules: 2
Odd FAQ entry: 1
Bunch of strange rules interpretations: 0

Hopefully they don't subtract out the remaining restrictions, or by 2014 these forums will be filled with kids dual wielding shields.


cfalcon... how does something requiring atleast 1 hand prevent you from using a 2nd hand to swing it? Also, open up the prd, goto the equipment section, realize that in the weapon table that a heavy shield is listed as a one handed martial weapon. Anyway, I have gotten the confirmation I was looking for, now to make dumb stuff.


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

I made a custom shield for a char with a top handle for more 2 handed options. But the simple use of one guide arm (plus some oompf) and the other applying force in whatever angle of attack they needed satisfies the logic part.

Hell use your shield to bash forward with both arms to brace, knock the foe down or unbalanced then move your right arm on top of the shield to apply extra force in a downward strike with the edge of the shield...if you have some shield spikes on the bottom as well, its gonna hurt. Even in real life bro.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.


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.

hey you make a good point. It says nothing about at least. But it also does not say that you can use at most 1 hand to bash with it. There is no listed limitation stating that you cannot put an extra hand on it. The real raw is that it is in the prd as a one handed weapon. RAW, one handed weapons can be wielded with 2 hands.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Being able to "put a hand" on something doesn't let you WIELD IT WITH TWO HANDS. No rule lets you do that. The rules state that you use the shield with one hand. Granted, they are phrased differently than the explicit statement on the rapier, but they are still there. Anything else is making stuff up because you, or someone, thinks everything is bedda wit chedda.


cfalcon, did you see my questions to you?

Liberty's Edge

cfalcon wrote:
Being able to "put a hand" on something doesn't let you WIELD IT WITH TWO HANDS. No rule lets you do that. The rules state that you use the shield with one hand. Granted, they are phrased differently than the explicit statement on the rapier, but they are still there. Anything else is making stuff up because you, or someone, thinks everything is bedda wit chedda.

Neither does it prohibit it. All the entry you've quoted does is show that you must strap a shield to a hand to use it. It says nothing about whether you can also use another hand with it. Just because it has a singular "hand" doesn't mean it can't be used with two hands. In fact, unless it says otherwise it'd follow the rules for one-handed weapons (which it is classified as) and be possible to two-hand. Does it say you cannot? No? Funny. Guess that means it can be two-handed.

What that line DOES do is prevent someone from strapping a shield to their foot, back, waist, head, etc and getting any shield bonus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Yes kaeyoss that was it. "What that old thing? Naw I got my bashing board I'm ok"


Go for it cap.

But if you want to get 1.5x strength from throwing you'll need the feat from UC

Shadow Lodge

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. 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.


In fact the Rapier has rules disallowing 2handing which would lead us to the conclusion that any weapon without this stated restriction can in fact be two handed.


Two words. Captain America. He two-hands his shield all the time. On the other the way he does it I'd say he wasn't getting the shield bonus while doing so.

Also...Holy awesomeness! I can main hand a shield! I can actually play Cap. Freaking sweet.

The Exchange

MichaelJ82 wrote:

Two words. Captain America. He two-hands his shield all the time. On the other the way he does it I'd say he wasn't getting the shield bonus while doing so.

Also...Holy awesomeness! I can main hand a shield! I can actually play Cap. Freaking sweet.

Pretty much. I can see swinging a shield two handed, but not while holding it in such a way as to still use it effectively for defense.


in my campaign any player who will do this will b shot at dawn....

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

cfalcon wrote:

It's ludicrous.

...

So in addition to it being offensive...

...somehow is getting twisted into some mockery of combat.

...or by 2014 these forums will be filled with kids dual wielding shields.

...making a mockery of ancestral humans.

^The crux of the issue. The application of "rules" is an afterthought, trying so support a position that's really based on him feeling offended that people are defiling his game with this idea.

Seeing as that's now pretty clear to everyone, I think the OP's question has been sufficiently answered.

Also, the Grammar Nazi in me wants to point this out:

cfalcon wrote:

But you still have the restriction above:

Quote:


Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.

The singular form of "hand" in these sentences is mere verb agreement, not a rules restriction.


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 mean there used to be a somantic weaponry feat in 3.5 which allowed casting with weapon in hand. But without it, a shield user in melee range is restricted to a buckler in order to cast spell. If the shield can be used as AC and offensive weapon (with proper feat/enhancement) then you can have your off-hand for spellcasting with +2 AC from the upgrade from the buckler (have your holy symbol on the shield, or you know birthmark trait).

In addition, for the fighter, it makes it easier to specialize down the shield bash mastery route without focus et al. on another 1h weapon.

A little weird, DM who emphasize "realism" will scream, but overall such mechanical advantage.

-Jelly


Jellyfulfish wrote:
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.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

hogarth wrote:
Jellyfulfish wrote:
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.

A +2 defending greatsword? That's all I got. :P


Jellyfulfish wrote:

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?

-Jelly

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.

And thats a painful feat to have to take, especially on top of all the feats you need to make this really good.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

KrispyXIV wrote:
Jellyfulfish wrote:

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?

-Jelly

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.

And thats a painful feat to have to take, especially on top of all the feats you need to make this really good.

Go-go half-elf Ancestral Arms! :D


KrispyXIV wrote:
Jellyfulfish wrote:

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?

-Jelly

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.

And thats a painful feat to have to take, especially on top of all the feats you need to make this really good.

I am thinking that with the heavy feat requirements for this idea, that such a cleric would take atleast 1 lvl of fighter for a bonus feat and the necessary martial weapon proficiency.


Haven't taken a look at either PF or 3.5 to confirm this but we might have played it wrong with the Cleric shield bashing. Makes sense, as the shield used in an offensive manner (you know, like having a really disturbing holy symbol painted on the shield surface xD) is a martial weapon, which cleric lacks proficiency in.

1 lev of fighter for heavy armor and the full martial weapon array, delays you back to martial oracle spellcasting progression, but seems on par if your mojo lies in the domains and energy burst vs. revelations and such.

No somantic weaponry equivalent feat released in UM or UC then, guessing from lack of pointers in the replies.

-Jelly

Liberty's Edge

Jellyfulfish wrote:

Haven't taken a look at either PF or 3.5 to confirm this but we might have played it wrong with the Cleric shield bashing. Makes sense, as the shield used in an offensive manner (you know, like having a really disturbing holy symbol painted on the shield surface xD) is a martial weapon, which cleric lacks proficiency in.

1 lev of fighter for heavy armor and the full martial weapon array, delays you back to martial oracle spellcasting progression, but seems on par if your mojo lies in the domains and energy burst vs. revelations and such.

No somantic weaponry equivalent feat released in UM or UC then, guessing from lack of pointers in the replies.

-Jelly

The closest thing we have in PF is the Arcane Duelist's bonded weapon, but that's specific to the one archetype of bard.


cfalcon wrote:


Quote:
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.

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.


Jiggy wrote:
hogarth wrote:
Jellyfulfish wrote:
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.

A +2 defending greatsword? That's all I got. :P

Its quite fun actually. I am playing a 2 handed shield using Crusader in our 3.5/PF mix game atm. Around lvl 7ish. Add Strongarm bracers to what you have above and I am doin like 3d6+7 a hit. Not shabby for a 6k magic itema and feat, plus bashing is cheap and provides the 2 size increase plus the +1 to hit and dmg. I dont plan to throw it though.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Davick wrote:
cfalcon wrote:


Quote:
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.

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.

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.


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.


Ughbash wrote:

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.

BS, it IS worn like a shield. Its strapped to a char arm when they shield bash with it. You just making stuff up to prevent it when we are using the one handed martial weapon rules and applying it to the shield with our free hand. And your an imp shield bash away from keeping AC

1 to 50 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.