In other words James Jacobs, Master Arminas, and at least a few others are totally in favor of forbidding something that is otherwise permissible by the rules, even to the detriment of their players' fun because they feel it's "too silly"?
I dunno. Spiked Chain seems beyond silly to me, and even MORE silly that it is superior to so many weapons out there. What's also silly is that so many exotic weapons are so useless compared to their martial counterparts. Yes, I know you said you ban it Arminas, but what if one of your players really wanted to use it? Would you simply say "no", even if he was willing to find another group in order to do it?
I don't know about you two, but we have so few players who can consistently make games in my area that I have to play general games that can cater to everyone's taste.
Why are those shields? They have shields on them, but they look more like weapons, to me.http://www.myarmoury.com/images/features/pic_spot_combo62.jpg
https://www.genesismud.org/forums/download/file.php?id=45
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w62/Razor-_2007/IMG_0268.jpg
Exactly. But they are still shields, capable of deflecting enemy attacks and still being capable of dealing damage. They are especially made shields. As I said, why couldn't someone create an especially made shield/weapon that is large enough to be called a light shield or even a heavy shield instead of being only a buckler like those and wielding them both on each arm which are capable of dealing either piercing, bludgeoning or slashing damage. I strongly believe that it is possible.
Good questions, Red Army.
I would say no, not just to be a jerk, but because the weapon doesn't fit within my world. I would then suggest a manriki-gusari (or a weighted chain). Which is an actual length of weighted chain. Weighs a lot less than a spiked chain (only about 5-6 lbs) is about the same length, would give the same bonuses on disarm and trip, but would do 1d6 damage (B).
I also don't use archetypes or any of the feats, spells, or classes from APG, Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic. Haven't had a problem with that so far either. But then again, I do allow new weapons (if they make sense) and an occassional class that fits my universe. Hexblade, warlock, warmage, swashbuckler, assassin (core 1-20, not prestige), among them.
If a player wants to use a particular weapon so bad that he will find another group instead of using something else . . . I think that is the type of player my group is better off without. We concentrate on the characters, not the numbers overmuch. They are not optimized, and if the player in question really got that worked up over not being able to use a spiked chain, odds are he is an optimizer. Perhaps even a munchkin. And those types do not do well in games that I run.
Master Arminas
I would disallow it because of the cheese involved, but not because it looks silly. A monk can headbutt an adamantine golem into submission, but i'm not going to tell the player he can't because its "silly".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Show me something from anything—history, movies, comic books, whatever—that's not an RPG— where someone uses two shields in a cool fighting style that doesn't look lame and actually looks like it works to both defend and fight... then we'll talk!
Samurai Jack. That episode based on the Battle of Thermopylae with the robot minotaurs and the Spartans with the explosive spears. During the final battle against the robot octopus thing, Jack was disarmed of his katana and borrowed the shield od the main Spartan guy, thus wielding dual heavy steel shields. The fighting style resembled a mix of Captain America with fighting fans.
I would say no, not just to be a jerk, but because the weapon doesn't fit within my world. I would then suggest a manriki-gusari (or a weighted chain). Which is an actual length of weighted chain. Weighs a lot less than a spiked chain (only about 5-6 lbs) is about the same length, would give the same bonuses on disarm and trip, but would do 1d6 damage (B).
That actually sounds like a nice weapon.
I also don't use archetypes or any of the feats, spells, or classes from APG, Ultimate Combat, or Ultimate Magic. Haven't had a problem with that so far either. But then again, I do allow new weapons (if they make sense) and an occassional class that fits my universe. Hexblade, warlock, warmage, swashbuckler, assassin (core 1-20, not prestige), among them.
If your players are fine with the world you run, and are happy, then you're doing fine (and don't need me to tell you that). I just wasn't sure if you were the kind of DM who ran a particular type of world, and is only interested in running "his world", even if it meant less fun for his players. I've had DMs like that, so it's something that I am wary of, in others and myself.
If a player wants to use a particular weapon so bad that he will find another group instead of using something else . . . I think that is the type of player my group is better off without. We concentrate on the characters, not the numbers overmuch. They are not optimized, and if the player in question really got that worked up over not being able to use a spiked chain, odds are he is an optimizer. Perhaps even a munchkin. And those types do not do well in games that I run.
I see your point. But someone can want to be an effective character while still having role-playing potential. Once again, I had a paladin in a group with another - mine was very balanced (no stat under 10) while his was more power-gamer like. I really enjoyed my character, but I ended up being worse at everything than he was simply because I didn't power game. I ended up playing something else - being second-string in my own class was simply not fun - if it were a fighter or something, that's something else, but inferior in combat and out by another paladin? Didn't float my boat.
I wonder if someone had an idea that was silly but not munchkin-like (like wanting to use two shields), I wonder how much you would budge. I dunno. Like I said, I can't be picky with my group. Maybe you can be. If so, good for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have to disagree with you on how you characterize said individual Arminas. Often enough I've found many players just want the paper to match the image in their head. Before I'd assume a munchkin or an optimizer I'd ask if the player would accept the stats of a chain and reskin it as spiked.
The DM does always get final call, but at the same time stating something is too silly for a game that by function consists of sitting around a table rolling dice to supplement your imagination just seems nonsensical to me more so than dual wielding shields or a spiked chain. The shields are a viable combat method, at least bucklers are, and the spiked chain could easily be used by anyone wearing sufficient armor to deflect the spikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Red Army, Jak, you points are taken.
And I did not, perhaps, make myself completely clear. Yes, the player and I would have to have a discussion, and if he wanted to use a simple weighted chain and for him to describe it as having (non functional, decorative, minor spikes) while keeping the stats as I gave above, then yes. But if he throws a tantrum and declares 'that's not a spiked chain, a spiked chain is CORE; see it says right here what a spiked chain is', then the player is not someone either my group or myself will probably have a fun time with. And the game is about having fun.
My group and I have matured enough, I believe, that having the biggest bonus and being better than the other players isn't our priority. The adventure and enjoying a night with our friends, is our priority. And anyone willing to do that, and play in mature manner, who wants to enjoy a role-playing as oppossed to roll-playing game is more than welcome to join us. If not, he can always go home, play World of Warcraft or find another group.
Master Arminas
They are especially made shields.
Counter argument: Those are specially made weapons.
In which case, you're not dual-wielding shields.
James, which is just as silly as dual wielding heavy shields? No offense intended.
Andostre do you consider a spiked shield to be a weapon or a shield or can it not be both?
The question wasn't a mechanical one if was one of his definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the base rules the shield is a shield and is enhanced as one. The spikes are the weapon and are enhanced as such separately. You can only apply the enhancements from the weapon chart to the spikes. They have separate bonus calculations. The +1/+10 of the spikes attack do nothing for the AC bonus provided to the PC just as the +1/+10 of the shield defense do nothing for the attack of the PC.James, which is just as silly as dual wielding heavy shields? No offense intended.
Andostre do you consider a spiked shield to be a weapon or a shield or can it not be both?
Hey James, I think you must missed this post:
Bucklers were called the Poor-Man's-Shield, and was used by itself or with a dagger. Someone would ram the edge of the Buckler into the opponents face, with devistating power. Imagine a Boxing Glove made of Steel or hardened leather wide enough to hit both eyes, thin enough to hit precisly where you were aiming it, strong enough to be used repeatedly, and cheap enough to be bought by everyone. If you didn't have a knife on you, you would have a Buckler. Friar Tuck from Robin Hood used a Buckler and deflected his arrows at point blank range.
That is attacking with just a shield. I heard there was evidence of using two Bucklers with a two handed sword, and using two Bucklers at once, but never anything bigger.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given fantasy RPGs are in fact fantasy, I find the notion that demanding spiked chains have a real world context to be sillier than the weapons themselves. Likewise, something that seems silly when presented in one way can seem legitimately cool when presented in another. For example...
The 3.x PHB picture of the spiked chain looked like an unwieldy abomination. Later depictions and re-interpretations of the weapon look far cooler, and much more combat worthy. For example...
This interpretation is a chain that most of the length is perfectly acceptable to hold, while the business ends of the weapon are spiked. It would provide plenty of leeway to extend the chain while grasping it comfortably, while being able to attack with either end.
This interpretation depicts the spiked chain as a long length of chain, again with spikes on the business portions of the chain.
This interpretation, presumably by the almighty Wayne Reynolds, also depicts the spiked chain as a fluid and powerful reach weapon that has weighted spikes on the business ends of the weapon.
All in all, they're really quite cool. But ah, I bet somebody will think they aren't cool, and thus shouldn't be here. Oh but my friends, that's very narrow minded. Would you rather not have the vast majority of Golarion, even though most of it is certain to be seen as "not cool" by someone who likes something different? Would you prefer we remove bards because people think they are "not cool"?
Likewise, should there not be an option to do something just because the object of your fantasy didn't exist in our reality? Is that not what fantasy is FOR?
I actually have a player who has rolled a Fighter in my games who specializes in shields and wields two of them at once. One is a hefty tower shield, and the other is a spiked heavy shield. Her armor is likewise spiked all over the place. You wouldn't want to crash into her, or she you, and that's essentially exactly what she does. She uses shield bash attacks to throw herself into her opponent, while remaining bunkered down with her shields. Imagine some sort of style based off an angry ram. Arguably, if one was to try and mimic this unique style the player describes, it would probably be very difficult to fight against using traditional means, as you would have an extremely difficult time pinning her shield, striking an opening, and so forth, while each time you tried you'd just get a spiked shield shoved at you by a quarterback-like warrior.
Truthfully, this PC has been one of the coolest Fighters I have seen in a long time, and surprisingly versatile. She is both offensive and defensive, and has enough flare and style to make her stand out. She is a walking fortress on the battlefield, and she's good at her job.
I like to think that since we play in a world with so many different races and cultures (not all of which are based on real world cultures) that it is very likely that many of these cultures have developed fighting styles that never existed in our own world.
I am actually a little bugged by the idea that everything added to Pathfinder must have a real world inspiration or counterpart in order to not seem "silly". But as long as the game does not prevent players from playing these concepts legally then I will be happy.
I have often imagined that many Dwarven warriors would have trained in dual-shield wielding, that fighting style just seems to fit with the images I have of great Dwarven warriors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like to think that since we play in a world with so many different races and cultures (not all of which are based on real world cultures) that it is very likely that many of these cultures have developed fighting styles that never existed in our own world.
I am actually a little bugged by the idea that everything added to Pathfinder must have a real world inspiration or counterpart in order to not seem "silly". But as long as the game does not prevent players from playing these concepts legally then I will be happy.
I have often imagined that many Dwarven warriors would have trained in dual-shield wielding, that fighting style just seems to fit with the images I have of great Dwarven warriors.
I agree. The fact that the real world never saw these sorts of fighting styles isn't really relevant, as the real world never had to deal with manticores or dragons or balors...
It seems to me, in a fantasy setting, you'd see at least occasionally adventurers pioneering odd, different, or weird fighting styles, looking for whatever edge they can glean over the horrors of the world.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one's referencing this link from above, but it's what you all wanted.
There was an ancient fighting style that used two shields.
And as a guy who fights for a living, I'm saying it's not only plausible, but a really dang awesome idea. I'm guessing more societies didn't embrace it because as a battlefield style it wouldn't kill the opponent as quickly as a spear, but as a defensive technique and for tournament style I'll put my money down it'd work quite well. Even without the spikes along the bottom, although those would certainly help.
I can see that. It would work better on a one on one encounter even if they are slightly unwieldy. Most weaponry over time has altered to warfare and that doesn't really look viable in a formation.
I can see that. It would work better on a one on one encounter even if they are slightly unwieldy. Most weaponry over time has altered to warfare and that doesn't really look viable in a formation.
Amen. Exactly.
I'm so glad that I don't have to play by the limited creativity and close minded approach that James Jacob has. Calling someone else's idea silly when it is based on the rules of the game created by designers who decided to include far sillier weapons invites claims of hypocracy especially when you consider that this player's ideas are not only based on rules allowed within the game but have historical basis for their use. To be clear, the latter is not needed. This is a fantasy game and as such invites creativity. Punishing a player for being creative just because your too close minded to approve of such an outlandish idea (sarcasm) to the extent of not allowing that player to play in your game is polarizing to your player base.
James, I do not accept your challenge or think that it is even relavent to a fantasy game like Pathfinder. I'd think that you would know this. Actually requiring real world examples of the things that MOST characters do seems far more silly than someone picking up two shields and fighting with them.
All that being said, I think this conversation has strayed far too off topic. I think James' post detracted from the topic most of all. I would love to see this topic get back on track and actually have some constructive advice given. It would be nice if we saw that kind of thing from the designers but if that is too much to ask then I would ask them to at least reserve their negative opinions to themselves and try to be supportive of the community that supports them.
Brianide: While I have seen your idea done before in 3.x I think a fresh look at it in Pathfinder would be refreshing! :) Irulesmost, I think, had some good advice on how to properly build such a character. While it might not be as powerful as some other builds I think it would make a very interesting concept and look forward to seeing what you build.
Dual wielding shield brawler. I was thinking of that earlier. One shield for blocking the second for pounding. The general damage boost would be very helpful considering the low base damage of shields
As another poster stated I think that Dwarves would be the natural race best suited for this type of combat as I could easily see this fighting style as appealing to them. Maybe even make them Armored Hulk archetype Barbarian. It would be very in-theme to have more than one shield to chew on. ;)
Creative Director
|
I'm so glad that I don't have to play by the limited creativity and close minded approach that James Jacob has. Calling someone else's idea silly when it is based on the rules of the game created by designers who decided to include far sillier weapons invites claims of hypocracy especially when you consider that this player's ideas are not only based on rules allowed within the game but have historical basis for their use. To be clear, the latter is not needed. This is a fantasy game and as such invites creativity. Punishing a player for being creative just because your too close minded to approve of such an outlandish idea (sarcasm) to the extent of not allowing that player to play in your game is polarizing to your player base.
James, I do not accept your challenge or think that it is even relavent to a fantasy game like Pathfinder. I'd think that you would know this. Actually requiring real world examples of the things that MOST characters do seems far more silly than someone picking up two shields and fighting with them.
All that being said, I think this conversation has strayed far too off topic. I think James' post detracted from the topic most of all. I would love to see this topic get back on track and actually have some constructive advice given. It would be nice if we saw that kind of thing from the designers but if that is too much to ask then I would ask them to at least reserve their negative opinions to themselves and try to be supportive of the community that supports them.
Brianide: While I have seen your idea done before in 3.x I think a fresh look at it in Pathfinder would be refreshing! :) Irulesmost, I think, had some good advice on how to properly build such a character. While it might not be as powerful as some other builds I think it would make a very interesting concept and look forward to seeing what you build.
No worries! Enjoy the game anyway!
Sorry my opinions on the matter didn't sit well with you, and sorry you interpreted my desire to learn more about the possibility of real-world two-shield fighting as a lack of creativity.
I'll just wander off and let the thread get back on track, I guess. I'm certainly not interested in getting into a big internet argument, when all I was trying to do was... nah. Nevermind.
Y'all are missing the obvious.
The feat Shield Master makes it so you can apply a shield's defensive enhancement bonus to its attack rolls/damage. Defensive enhancements are cheaper;
(bonus^2)*1000, rather than (bonus^2)*2000.
Shield Master also removes TWF penalties when using a weapon and shield (weapon here being other shield)One of Shield Master's prereqs is Shield Slam, which allows a free bullrush attempt whenever you hit with a shield bash.
This bullrush attempt is modified by any effects that modify a bullrush, such as Improved and Greater Bullrush. Greater Bullrush allows you and your allies to take AoOs against the enemy when you successfully bullrush him. Add this to the high Dex needed for a TWF build, and the additional AoOs from Combat Reflexes, and suddenly, the build gets mad battlefield control combined with some of the more powerful TWF offense attainable, and well above-average defense to boot.
Not perfect, but what is?
^ This is what I was thinking. Add in that with fighters your weapon focus/specialization and weapon training apply to both equally. Dam powerful, plain and simple.
James, as silly as you may think double-end swords are, you have to admit that they looked damn wicked in the beginning of Lord of the Rings. Not to mention Starwars. Make a double-end sword with the brilliant energy enchantment and BAM! El Lightsaber-o :P
Which double-ended swords from the start of LOTR?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for your candor, James. I truely meant no offense to you but hopefully I opened your eyes to be more open minded about what other player's opinions are. I felt kinda bad for the original poster for having a Creative Director drop in just to call his idea silly and demand a real world example for the idea to be considered worthy of play. Perhaps simply saying that "When the rules were written that wasn't the intention that you had in mind but if your group likes that style of play then I don't see why you couldn't do it. Its just not my cup of tea because the group I like to play with prefers more realism to go with our fireball flinging sorcerers." ... ;) Sorry, couldn't resist with the last part there.
ArgentumLupus: I think I know the scene your talking about. Is it the one where all the elves are standing in formation as the oncoming orcs rushed them and they whipped out their swords? It is actually hard to tell whether those are dual swords or not so I can see your confusion. I, for one, think it would be pretty badass to see them using that style of weapon. I never really saw elves as the phallanx behind a shield wall type. They seem more offensive and I think a wall of spinning dual bladed scimitars seems more fitting. But then... I realize not everyone shares my vision. Just like dual shield wielding dwarves seems appropriate to me, apparently not everyone can imagine such a far fetched idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More stuff to favorite some more
Ashiel, your posts are always a pleasure to read. Also, darn you for ripping the words out of my mouth and injecting them into the net in a far more eloquent way that I am currently capable of creating lol.
Your player sounds like a player after my own heart. I had played a character like that in a 3.5 game last year, Dwarven Fighter that was originally going to be a Battlerager a la the Gutbusters via Thibbledorf Pwent from Forgotten Realms. My GM talked me into dual-spiked shielded bull rushing after the first session, so as the game went on he was destroying those trying to get past him with his dual-heavy spiked shields, or answering the age old question "What does it feel like to be hugged by a cactus?" My shining moment was perhaps when I popped the heads off two imps with each hand, and belly-flopped the last one (it wound up stuck to his armor, and he used a stick to peel it off like gum on a shoe before it poofed). He was particularly effective in narrow corridors (we were doing an underground dungeon crawl, so, bonus there) as a Dwarven Defender.
In the mean time, I tend to agree that in a high fantasy game where wizards are warping reality, aliens have crash landed, elixirs of eternal life are created by alchemists, a lone region of a magic-blasted land manages to go cow-boy, and dragons are flying around and gods are toying with mortal lives... Well you get the idea. The thought that ANY fighting style in such a setting is "silly", particularly when there are very different races, is much more silly than the weapons and styles themselves. To tell you all the truth I have never face palmed so hard in my life as when I read this thread. I have a migrane from it. In my games I even allow Sword-chucks.
In the mean time back on topic... A dual-shield fighter, if you have a willing DM, can make for an excellent and highly thematic character.
@Sakuri
Dual wield Calvinball!
Aside from the Starknife bit I couldn't disagree more, Axl. I don't think it is cheesy as I dont believe it is "shabby or cheap". I think that would require it to be done more often. And I do not believe it is a more effective strategy than either sword and board and definately not a double weapon.
What I do believe is that it is a creative and viable strategy that can be used effectively within the rules that also creates a fun and plausible visual theme for a character.
I wish people weren't so closed minded about such ideas. Its seems that if it doesn't fit someone's narrow interpretation of what an iconic archtypical character would use then it is just considered bad or "silly". And if it gives a tactical advantage (something, I should remind everyone that a character that is constantly putting his life on the line would seek) then it is considered "cheesy".
I implore you all to be a bit more open to other ideas. If you don't want to include them in your games that is fine but going to the extent of calling someone else's ideas silly or cheesy might cross the line into being offensive even if unintentional.
Holding two shields won't give you any extra shield bonus, but a fighter with the proper feats that wields enhanced/spiked/bashing shields is going to be dishing out solid damage while still getting an AC bonus from them. Is there a good reason not to do this? I put together a warrior NPC who fights like this with "razorshields" (functionally the same as spiked, but they have bladed edges and deal slashig instead of piercing), and I like him a lot.
I have heard that whilst utilizing the shield(s) to attack, that you forfeit the provided shield AC bonus for that round because you are no longer defending with it. On the other hand I believe there are feats for that specific thing.
Just about as silly as the whole "Dual Tower Shields" Idea that passed through my group years back.
:)
Personally I think denying something from Pathfinder because it's 'silly' is a very poor criteria for denying something from the game.
No, it's perfectly reasonable. It's part of a publisher setting the tone of their products. It's also entirely reasonable for individual tables to set a different tone, should they choose to do so. But the initial product will have its own default tone that the publisher has the right to set as they desire based on their own ideas and feelings on the topic.
More stuff to favorite some moreAshiel, your posts are always a pleasure to read. Also, darn you for ripping the words out of my mouth and injecting them into the net in a far more eloquent way that I am currently capable of creating lol.
Aw, thank you Artemis. ^.^
Your player sounds like a player after my own heart. I had played a character like that in a 3.5 game last year, Dwarven Fighter that was originally going to be a Battlerager a la the Gutbusters via Thibbledorf Pwent from Forgotten Realms. My GM talked me into dual-spiked shielded bull rushing after the first session, so as the game went on he was destroying those trying to get past him with his dual-heavy spiked shields, or answering the age old question "What does it feel like to be hugged by a cactus?" My shining moment was perhaps when I popped the heads off two imps with each hand, and belly-flopped the last one (it wound up stuck to his armor, and he used a stick to peel it off like gum on a shoe before it poofed). He was particularly effective in narrow corridors (we were doing an underground dungeon crawl, so, bonus there) as a Dwarven Defender.
In the mean time, I tend to agree that in a high fantasy game where wizards are warping reality, aliens have crash landed, elixirs of eternal life are created by alchemists, a lone region of a magic-blasted land manages to go cow-boy, and dragons are flying around and gods are toying with mortal lives... Well you get the idea. The thought that ANY fighting style in such a setting is "silly", particularly when there are very different races, is much more silly than the weapons and styles themselves. To tell you all the truth I have never face palmed so hard in my life as when I read this thread. I have a migrane from it. In my games I even allow Sword-chucks.
The concept of sword chucks seems funny, but technically it's just nunchaku flails with blades as the business ends. Or in other words, flails with blades instead of spikes. I could actually imagine somebody in reality learning to use a weapon like that. I mean, honestly, the crazy "unrealistic D&D weapons" are actually less strange than a lot of the weapons used in Kung Fu.
I thought of something that is not silly using the flagbearer feat from the inner sea world guide and a spiked shield on an npc. This way he delivers offense indirectly by giving his allies +1 hit and damage. He is also a fighter 1 /bard 1 so gets bardic music to help as well.
|
Why stop at just two shields?
Surely you could DW them AND Strap a tower shield across your back, right?
((fwiw, I think the whole dual-shield--western/medieval shields, not bucklers, not African battle spear-sheild things is a silly exercise in "working the system" more than anything--but I tend to treat my games as fictional slices of a "real" world, and since no one in the Middle Ages went about be-sheilded with 2 of them, I just can't stretch to allow it))