|
Here's where the game fails as a simulation. Shields are too heavy to wield effectively and too cumbersome. Shields are also big and easy to hit. Sunder sort of simulates it, but not completely. The Roman pilum was designed to neutralize shields quickly.
Tonfa are awesome btw and I would rather have one of them in my hand than a sword, but they are not shields.
Whether or not you embrace this however is really a question of aesthetics. If your only concern is mechanics, sure you could. If your take on the game requires history and reality as a benchmark, then this feels, well, silly.
So, Mr. Kilgore says, Rules-fu. 5 stars. Realism. 0 stars.
BTW... Edition wars is Boooooooring compared to the geek laden frenzy that is Shield Wars!
Yeah you guys are right. Duel wielding spiked edged shields and toppling people is lame. I'm thinking of a shield+chainsaw would be awesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I find amusing is that people seem to think it's A-OK to have summoners sprouting a forest of limbs out of their butts, and tearing everything apart zergling style, and yet people think that "too heavy and cumbersome" is a legitimate reason why dual-shielding(TM) isn't cool.
Also, for the record, carrying two shields is encumbering. The rules already take this into account. For example, a heavy wooden shield weighs 10 lbs, which is significantly more than most one-handed weapons (which tend to weigh about 4 lb), and heavy steel shields weigh a whopping 15 lbs each. This means that unless you want to eat encumbrance like a fool, then you either need to be a dwarf or have a really nice strength score. For example, if you're in chainmail (40 lb) and carrying two heavy wooden shields (20 lb total) you're in 60 lbs worth of gear already, before factoring in your other equipment, which means your average person is going to be pressed into a heavy load really quickly; which cuts your speed to 20 ft, max dex to AC to +1, and gives you a significant penalty to Dex and Str based skills.
Now someone who was particularly strong (say 16+ strength) would be able to support this without much trouble. In fact, the type of guy likely to rock this concept is in fact the big linebacker type, who is going to have a high strength to make it all come together. This is especially true if you're wielding a heavy shield + tower shield like my player in my tabletop game, whose PC went by the name "Meriappi 'Shield Sage'", as just in her armor + shields she was sporting 50 lb armor, 45 lb tower, 15 lb steel shield = 110 lb worth of equipment before factoring in backup weapons, loot, alchemical items, etc. A good Strength score is a must for this sort of thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ripsaw glaive. Chainsaw on a stick. Thank you gnomes.
Which real-world culture do you suppose that came from? Maybe we should ask Mr. James. Perhaps he can enlighten us, for I feel it just doesn't ring any bells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking the culture of redneck midgets.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Historical combat styles have tended to develop based around where humans typically fight (outdoors), ease of manufacturing a weapon, how a human is proportioned, what a human is usually fighting (other humans or, much more rarely, an animal or a human on an animal), and who you're fighting alongside (typically other guys armed similarly). That's why across the whole period of human history that pathfinder's default technology level loosely covers, "one-handed sword", "knife", "spear", "shield" and "sometimes mace" account for the overwhelming majority of combat styles. Weapons are made of a fairly small variety of different materials. There's no reason for a combat style that compensates for the fact that you're fighting with a weapon made of alchemical silver, because nobody needs a weapon made of alchemical silver.
A fantasy world is a different beast, though. Not only are heroes exceptional people and thus more likely to use an unorthodox combat style, but they're also somewhat likely to be non-humans with non-human builds from non-human cultures fighting not just outdoors and certainly not just against human opponents. You're backed up not by a few other guys with the same weapons and training you have, but by people calling on the powers of arcane and divine magic - and you yourself may be doing so, as a weapon-using caster.
Pathfinder already makes concessions to the idea that the non-Earth History setting allows for non-standard combat styles. The battle aspergillum is not a weapon that makes a lot of sense on Earth, because few things that anyone fights are vulnerable to holy water. A Magus likely uses a style unlike anything seen on earth, because leaving a hand free to cast spells while you fight is not typically a priority here.
Let's take just one race from the setting and imagine why they might develop a dual-shield style. I'm not claiming that dwarves would inevitably develop a dual-shield style, but there are some reasons that they might. First, a dwarf is proportioned differently than a human. They have shorter legs and arms, but their arms are stronger. When a human does a shield bash, they tend to throw their weight behind the shield, allowing them to put the muscle in their legs behind the blow. (A human's legs are much, much stronger than their arms.) A dwarf doesn't get the same kind of leverage out of his or her legs or arms, but compensates by having stronger arms. A dwarven shield bash might look more like a tennis backhand and come more from the arms, making it a bit less imbalancing. Dwarves also have shorter limbs and are legendarily sturdy, meaning that swinging a shield in such a fashion wouldn't be as awkward for them. Many dwarves also live underground. Underground differs from traditional human combat locales in that it has walls everywhere. A two-shield dwarf might use one shield to pin a kobold against a wall while still fighting with his other shield. He might want to be able to defend himself from many directions at once while fighting small enemies like kobolds or goblins, whose small size allows them to stream around each other and more effectively fight many-to-one against larger creatures. (I know that in the rules, small and medium creatures occupy the same amount of space; smaller creatures, removed from a grid system, would still be able to more effectively fit more of themselves around a larger target.) He might want to protect himself from kobold slingers hiding in alcoves above him while still fighting with a shield against the ones on his level. And kobolds are hardly the weirdest thing a dwarven hero will ever fight. Once the two-shield style is established, then it gets promulgated and practitioners start using it in situations outside the ones it was optimized for.
Could you go through that section and nitpick away any or all of it? Absolutely. I'm already aware that that's possible, and if you're block quoting this post and going through it point by point doing just that, I apologize for wasting your time. The point is just supposed to be that in a world where combat already involves an unthinkable number of situations that real-world combat styles would never get developed around. What sort of special motions do you take when you're smiting evil? Just a regular strike, or is there something special? Does the divine power make your weapon move or strike differently? Is the same for every single deity that might be empowering the weapon? How do you change your style when a wizard lets you move faster than normal? How do you fight a tree, or something with strange anatomy, or something that you really, really don't want touching your skin, or something whose vulnerable points are completely different than a human's, or something that might or might not be there when you swing your hammer around?
It's not a matter of "If you can believe in Otyughs, you can believe a person can fight with two shields! An Otyugh is way less probable!" It's more of a matter of "If you can believe in Otyughs, you can believe that tactics, weapons and techniques might gain a foothold in a world where people have to fight things like that where they wouldn't have developed in a world where people mostly fight other people or once in a while bears." It's almost surprising that there's not way, way more weapons that don't make sense in the real world that exist. Where's the wooden club with an iron core for keeping rust monsters out of the armory? Where's the low, sweeping weapon that giants use to topple tiny humans who normally are able to dextrously get out of the way of heavy club swings? Think of the huge array of weapons and fighting styles devised by humans around the world, all basically the same size and build and working with a small set of materials and fighting mostly similar things. How much more incredible and diverse would the weapons and fighting styles of a world of fantastic creatures forging items with a huge variety of magic and magical materials to potentially fight anything you could imagine be?
And yeah, the two shields thing probably looks a little silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hehe, this is kinda comically fun at points. Alright, I'm game for SHIELD WARS!
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.
I'm fine with that, Bill. I really am. I do it in the games I run and so do my friends. IMO, everyone does it to some extent.
That is NOT what I saw going on here though. First of all there is nothing in the "tone" of the original books that convinces me that it wasn't intended to be available as a valid tactic. In fact, the rules seem to support that not only is it available and valid but easily done and tactically advantageous.
Secondly, it wasn't that James was trying to set the tone for his table. He was trying to set the tone for everyone's table. He further called the original poster's idea "silly" and demanded proof that the use of dual-shielding (borrowing the term) was historically relavent in a fantasy game.
Here's where the game fails as a simulation. Shields are too heavy to wield effectively and too cumbersome. Shields are also big and easy to hit.
Ok, again, I do not see where Pathfinder is supposed to be a simulation of anything based on Earth reality. A simulation of a fantasy setting? Sure. In that simulation I can easily imagine a character using two shields as an effective strategy. In fact, obviously in this fantasy setting it is not only feasible but it is effective.
Also, as an acedemic exercise some of my friends and I in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) had at one time decided to try out duel-shielding to see how effectively it could be done. I can tell you that while fighting in that style would definately need some perfection that it provided excellent cover from attacks while still leaving room for offense. Shields are heavy but they are used to punch with to not only block weapon blows but make hits. This is an excepted strategy with one shield so why not two? In short, it worked though was rather tiresome. I also don't have a >16 strength score, probably not even a single PC class level or live in a fantasy setting where magic is real. Thus the need to prove it's viability in the real word is moot as many others have also pointed out.
Yeah you guys are right. Duel wielding spiked edged shields and toppling people is lame. I'm thinking of a shield+chainsaw would be awesome.
Don't be silly. Chainsaws don't exist in Pathfinder. ...however if they did why waste making them seperate instruments? Shieldchainsaws is definately where its at! Great idea!
I mean I had just been about to make a post about how effective it would be to have a Marilith that that uses 6 Kusari-Kama but when I saw this post I figured that 6 shields was the way to go. But now you have me convinced that using Shieldchainsaws is definately the way to go. Actually, I now wonder if there is a way to make Shieldchainsaws into reach weapons by strapping them to the end of a pole with a chain on it. Lets call them Shieldchainsawchucks. Yep, thats definately superior to any other weapon. Can you imagine a Marilith swingin' 6 of those bad boys around?! Do I could somehow make all 6 shield bonuses stack? BRB, gotta go work on optimizing this build. Oh man... Lunge, Combat Reflexes and the Trip line of feats here I come!
Joyd, there is nothing you said that I could have said better. ;)
I would like to invite anyone who is interested in a constructive thought excersize about how one might build an effective dual-shielder to come over to the thread that I just created.
If you'd like to stay here to continue to discuss the historical relavency to a dual-shielder existing in a fantasy setting then feel free to continue that discussion here. I know I, for one, will continue to check out both threads.
Why stop at just two shields?
What I'm hearing here is "four-armed alchemist quad-wielding animated shields. With a fifth animated shield in orbit for good measure."
Two shield style is too mundane. Five shield style people! (One tower shield, possibly reflecting (and providing the shield bonus to AC), two shields for bashing, and two to alternate animated/arrow deflecting.)
...i.e. In a world where a four-armed warrior wielding five shields at once is possible, can we really call two shields silly?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's where the game fails as a simulation. Shields are too heavy to wield effectively and too cumbersome. Shields are also big and easy to hit.Ok, again, I do not see where Pathfinder is supposed to be a simulation of anything based on Earth reality. A simulation of a fantasy setting? Sure. In that simulation I can easily imagine a character using two shields as an effective strategy. In fact, obviously in this fantasy setting it is not only feasible but it is effective.
Also, as an acedemic exercise some of my friends and I in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) had at one time decided to try out duel-shielding to see how effectively it could be done. I can tell you that while fighting in that style would definately need some perfection that it provided excellent cover...
Heh. In a fantasy game, where you and the GM are in agreement about what's possible and not possible in the game world, do as you like.
Regarding the actual use of 2 shields, say, if you tried to pick them up and make that an effective fighting style... I too have dabbled extensively in medieval combat forms (in the SCA and elsewhere), and my original reaction was that this simply wouldn't be effective at all. I've taken some more time to think about it, and...
Depends on the shields you're trying to use, really. 2 Bucklers? Yes, that would work-- and if you were trying to batter/bruise and subdue someone, it would be spectacularly effective. Trying to kill him? Not so much, unless your bucklers have some really wicked spikes, and even then, slipping a dagger between his ribs will STILL do more damage. Yes, getting hit (hard) by the edge of a buckler is going to hurt like hell and you can kill someone that way if you get him in the throat-- but there's a reason it's usually rapier and buckler, not buckler and buckler for duelists.
2 light shields-- as in 2 round shields (NOT center-grip shields though-- more on that next paragraph) not much bigger in diameter than your forearm plus gauntlet-- I actually think you could use that reasonably effectively-- BUT, the shield does not have as much reach as a sword, mace or axe, and really does NOT do as much damage to your target. Yes, being on the receiving end of a good shield-punch hurts (has actually happened to me in the SCA-- s*** happens, y'know), and if it's a full-on metal-edged medieval shield, could definitely do some serious damage... but good armor is probably going to take that damage all the way back down to just being bruised and battered. Spikes on such a shield are not going to be as effective as they are on a buckler, and will not bring that shield's "hurt" potential up to the level of actually having a good weapon in your other hand. However, 2 light round shields will be excellent for shoving your opponents around and generally controlling the area around you-- so (in game) if you've got buddies standing behind you dishing out lots of damage and all you've gotta do is keep the enemy away from them so they can do the dirty work, great! There is another major drawback, however-- your own shields CAN be used against you, to control your actions on the battlefield. Unless your shields are somehow super-spiked/edged, so your opponent can't simply grab the edge of your shield and control YOU with it, you've got a problem... that doesn't usually happen with sword and shield combos, because while the opponent tries grabbing your shield you're gonna beat on his head, but with 2 shields on you? Yes, in practice I think your opponent can do a combination of moving you and/or moving with the shield he's got a grip on that you will NOT be able to bring your other shield into action against him (can't really swing your 2nd shield over or under the caught shield, the way you can with your weapon).
Center-grip shields of any size larger than bucklers don't really work in pairs-- you'll keep getting one shield in the other one's way way too much to be effective. Shields much larger than the small round ones described above, will both be very tiring (because of weight) and (like the center-grips) will NOT allow you enough range of motion with each shield (if you sufficiently clear room for one shield, you're holding the other one completely out of the way and rendering it nearly useless except as defense against a blow specifically from that side you're holding it off to); also the 2 large shields will have the same problem as the smaller ones in that your opponent can actually use them against you to some extent.
2 shields works mechanically in game because the game does not take into account these factors of one shield getting in the way of the other one, and because apparently the game drastically over-rates just how much damage you can do to opponents with a shield-- not that they can't be used to injure and/or kill, just that in reality they are NOT as dangerous as a sword, axe or mace. In the real use of weaponry, sword/mace and shield is one of the best combinations for melee combat that you can have... it's as close to the perfect balance of offense and defense as you're going to get, especially since you can still use that shield offensively when you get up close and personal with someone. The shield makes a much bigger difference in being able to keep your opponent from hitting you than the game gives it credit for-- likewise it's a lot harder to use two weapons, one in each hand, as effectively as you can use the sword/shield combo and that shield is much better for blocking someone else's attacks on you than any sword will be.
But again, the game is fantasy... you don't have to pay attention to the ways in which weapons were used in history, and in the practical realities of how these ancient weapons can be effectively used here on Earth, unless you want to insist on 'keeping it real' in your game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
meh, shields are so last century. what we need to start figuring out is how to dual+ wield armour spikes. that's the future!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example of how your shields can be used against you:
If your opponent has a free hand and is fairly quick, he can probably grab the edge of your shield (unless you've somehow got the entire thing super-spiked or with magically sharpened edges to prevent that). Alternately, if your opponent is using a weapon and shield combination, he can hook the edge of your leading shield with his shield, or do a shield-to-shield press on you. Once your opponent has done one of these three things, it's going to be pretty easy for him to at least briefly do a combination of moving you by the shield strapped to your arm or moving with you as you try to disengage your shield and/or move him around. At this point, one of your shields is entangled, and so long as your opponent is moving/moving you so as to stay out to the side of your shield that he has control of, your 2nd shield is out of position and blocked by your 1st shield (since even with the smaller shields, you really can't swing your 2nd shield OVER your 1st shield and possibly his shield to hit him with it). Meanwhile, he's still got a real weapon in his other hand, one of your shields is tied up, and because of the angles involved, it's going to be extraordinarily hard for you to keep him from hitting you with that weapon he's got. It's not so dangerous for you if your opponent grabs your shield when you have a weapon in your other hand, because while he's concentrating on your shield, you're probably going to be doing your best to hit him with that weapon you've got.
Elaboration on problem of space available and 2 shields:
I don't think viking-style center-grip shields of size much larger than bucklers could be used this way-- you just don't have enough lateral room in front of you to maneuver both effectively. 2 large shields (say, full-sized heaters; or worse yet, Roman-style scutums) would not be at all effective-- you simply don't have enough space or reach to keep from getting one shield in the other shield's way all the time unless you're going to just keep one back and out of the way, in which case what's the point? Plus, they're really heavy and will tire you out very quickly trying to use them like that.
2 shields is effective in the game mechanic, because the game does not take into account these difficulties of how much room it takes to use each shield effectively (and, hope I'm explaining this clearly-- it's not the reach/distance between you and your opponent, like the room you need to use a pike, it's the side to side distance in front of you between your right and left sides that's the problem); and because the game makes shields much more dangerous in terms of damage dealt to your opponent in comparison with what a sword or mace does to someone than they could actually do-- not that shields weren't deadly as weapons, just that they are NOT as deadly as most of the implements of war that were actually considering primary weapons (swords, maces, war axes, etc.). Of course the game ALSO neglects just how effective the shield was as a defensive implement in keeping your opponent from hitting you (although 2 shields, due to room and the need to see attacks coming if your opponent is sufficiently trained to not swing where your shield is already, is not going to be much of an improvement defensively over 1)-- weapon and shield is, as a real pair of weapons, one of the best combinations for melee combat you could have, as it's pretty much the perfect balance between offense and defense (using 2 weapons, one in each hand, is not usually as effective-- the shield is much better defensively than the 2nd weapon, and unless you're really well-trained it's very hard to use both weapons effectively at the same time-- if you can't do that, there's no point to using 2 weapons at once).
Personally, in a game I'm running, the above limitations will apply (damage nerfed a little bit; yes, you can bash with bucklers and that's actually useful; you're not doing it at all with 2 heavy shields, let alone tower shields). It's fantasy-- I'll warn a player that it's not going to be as effective as he thinks it is, but if he wants to do it anyway? Okay....
Actually, there's two ways for it to look cool, or actually three.
1st: Warmachines. The holy white team of whatever has a warjack that has two shields, they got cool spikes at the bottom to embed them in the ground as well, making it look cool defense wise. Offensive, I suppose they'd count as slam or claw attacks.
2nd: Darksiders. One race in the game, ancient stone giants. Their arms can be put defensively infront of them to form a large door-like form. Easily workable as shield. Again, monster idea, offence would be very much like slam or claw imo.
3rd: Hulk Movie. As said above somewhere in this wall of text. It looked cool, but mainly because he was so large and strong to stay mobile no matter what he held.
Can it look cool? Yes.
Would it be hard to look cool on a non-monster character? Yes.
|
|
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).
Hmmm. The argument that it doesn't fit your world is a good one-- my comment below does not reflect any dispute with that argument holding true for your game.
The drawings some of the people have already posted here, showing a "spiked chain" as just having the sharp spikes out at the business end (not throughout the entire chain) AND the fact that Pathfinder has drastically shortened up the weapon, to a reasonable and controllable length, makes me think however that the spiked chain might actually work in the real world (even though it doesn't have a historical counterpart). With a manriki-gusari, one is generally supposed to not hit oneself with the weighted ends anyway. As its effects are described in Pathfinder (5' reach, 2-8 damage, is useful for trip and disarm, crit is x2/20), I don't think it's overpowered since it is an exotic weapon.
Now, although I did have a pair of 3.5 characters who did use spiked chains, I was well aware that the spiked chain in 3.5 could not be used in reality the way it was in the game. Likewise, the typical drawing/common description of the spiked chain from the old game (spikes all the way up and down the whole length) isn't a workable weapon. Since the 2 characters in question were both extremely unusual, with seriously exotic backgrounds and strange powers, I figure they could fight with spiked chains like that because it was magic or something...
Regarding your stats for a manriki-gusari-- I think one more tweak could be in order, considering that it requires an exotic feat to use... I might add the additional change that you can use the weapon 1 handed, since so far as I know you actually can beat on someone with a manriki one-handed in reality (though I might still require 2 hands on the weapon for doing special maneuvers with it)-- either that, or allow the character who has proficiency in it to use it for lethal or non-lethal damage without penalties.
two shield style has been done before. Saw it in 3.5. Not the greatest damage combo but it does have its strengths.
It sure does. You can also do it in Dark Souls lol.
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.
Exactly, you know what you are talking about.
Some also had points, long barbs, the edges were usually sharpened. If you are actually using a buckler with a cup-hilt rapier, you are using a shield, and a weapon which has a buckler as a part of its construction and design.It's been done, there are some pics that have been provided, Masai, Chinese warriors etc. You can also be certain that somewhere on a battlefield, someone who had a shield and broke or lost their weapon two-weapon smashed with whatever they could grab on hand--like an extra shield. It is a good build going heavy and light both spiked. It doesn't have brilliant damage, but you pay feats to always have a nice armour ac.
I genrally agree that dual tower shields seems unworkable. Dual heavy shields largely fits into that category for me too. I do agree though that weapons and fighting styles are influenced heavily by who is using them, what they are intended to be used against, and sometimes where they are expected to be used or how acceptable they might be in a given culture.
I am open to the idea of a fantasy culture developing a style using dual light shields. It looks kinda cool in my minds eye, although I might still have it developed by a more exotic race (i.e. Ogres) and simple allow for it to be adopted by individuals who have chosen to learn the fringe/unique style.
Yeah, imagine a clan of cunning ogres using two spiked small shields in a brawl and block style, while keeping two handers as back-ups or when more suited, or some going dual shields, some going polearms. That way, the ogre warriors get shot less and take longer to fall.
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.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Can you imagine a melee veteran, who has got through many scrapes because he could block, parry and strike with his dual spiked shields. And then someone calls him cheap and cheesy. It would be ridiculous, especially if it just worked on a battlefield right there and then. How dare he try to survive with a good shield ac, and keep his arms attached to his body.
The iconic and what some consider to look right is valued by the few, over what could work with training, and what would be a good defensive option.
With basic boxing training, give someone two good, hard, sharp bucklers, they could beat another person's head in. If they had points coming out of them like some renaissance bucklers, well, it'd be easier to kill with, and also allow weapon locking (as can be done with an epee).
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
All you guys KNOW NOTHING about historical weaponry!!!The different cultures have used all kinds of wierd weapons INCLUDING DOUBLE SHIELDS.Just take a look at DOUBLE TIGERHEAD STEEL SHIELDS for example:-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yay. Evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dual shield kung fu FTW.
James Jacobs ows someone an apology.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to drop in and say "Bad form, JJ, bad form."
As a Paizo employee, I think it poor of you to speak in the manner you did in this thread. It was borderline hypocritical, to call someone's idea silly and say that it has no place in the game. You may have been talking about rules in books, but it was an extremely thin veil on an insult to anyone who has ever thought this was a fun idea, stated repeatedly and challenged in a way that put yourself on a pedestal. Regardless of my opinion, I would call foul on this. I am disappointed in you as a professional for your tone here. A simple "We didn't feel it had a place in the rules, but you are welcome to make house rules" would have sufficed, just like it does every other time you say it.
As for the matter at hand, I am on the fence. I have considered this idea, but only as a result of developing super-hero style characters ala Marvel or DC. I came up with a guy I named Bulwark that wore high tech chainmail and used shield-like powers (controlled force fields) to protect his allies/innocents and bash the hell out of the bad guys without killing them.
Would that translate to Pathfinder? I don't think I could satisfy my image of it. Someone else could be happy with an approximation. The scene with the Hulk and the two car doors is one of my favorites, and is an excellent example of how one could justify this concept.
As for balance: I don't think it will break your game. The damage output won't be as high as it could be with other weapons. AC will be higher, but after a certain threshold that will rarely matter anyway. The PC will be spending as much gold as a TWF on his weapons.
In closing: If you're having fun, don't worry about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Foghammer, thank you for your post. A couple of corrections for you though: A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon. Also, it is likely he will be spending less than the TWF character, and more equal with the two handed fighter as the cost to enchant a shield is half that of a weapon...and you get to use your shield bonus to hit/damage as well.
A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon
I don't think the spike and the bashing quality are supposed to stack with each other
Foghammer, thank you for your post. A couple of corrections for you though: A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon. Also, it is likely he will be spending less than the TWF character, and more equal with the two handed fighter as the cost to enchant a shield is half that of a weapon...and you get to use your shield bonus to hit/damage as well.
Ah, for some reason I had it in my mind that the bashing property only allowed you to transfer enhancement bonus from the shield into the bash for that round. I didn't realize it increased die size. Interesting... I suppose I would have to see that in play, but still seems like breaking that would require an extremely generous DM, or a LOT of time and playing invested into that character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit, I haven't read the thread, but what about this? Fight example
In my opinion, it's a pair of bucklers that can be used for bludgeoning attacks. Maybe add a +1 to your normal strength damage. You could put a blade at the end for a pierce. Definitely a Monk weapon, IMHO.
EDIT: Better example
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its sort of like the rule 34 of combat. If it exists, someone, somewhere, has figured out a way to hit someone else in the face with it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its sort of like the rule 34 of combat. If it exists, someone, somewhere, has figured out a way to hit someone else in the face with it.
Isn't the internet miraculous?
We've just gone from, "Thats silly, I dont know of anyone having ever done that!" to "Actually, we've got evidence of people having done that several times over. Here, I have pictures and videos." in like, what, 2 days?
Foghammer, thank you for your post. A couple of corrections for you though: A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon. Also, it is likely he will be spending less than the TWF character, and more equal with the two handed fighter as the cost to enchant a shield is half that of a weapon...and you get to use your shield bonus to hit/damage as well.Ah, for some reason I had it in my mind that the bashing property only allowed you to transfer enhancement bonus from the shield into the bash for that round. I didn't realize it increased die size. Interesting... I suppose I would have to see that in play, but still seems like breaking that would require an extremely generous DM, or a LOT of time and playing invested into that character.
A +1 bashing shield costs 4,000 gp. Bashing increases the damage as if you went up 2 size categories from whatever it currently is. Shield spikes raise it 1 category, and they stack. This takes the shield from 1d6->1d8->2d6-3d6. Then if you are enlarged, it raises to 4d6. If you also have lead blade applied to the shield, it hits 6d6, which is an average of 21 damage shield slams.
I wouldn't qualify that as "breaking" stuff, but I would say it holds its own just fine. :P
Foghammer, thank you for your post. A couple of corrections for you though: A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon. Also, it is likely he will be spending less than the TWF character, and more equal with the two handed fighter as the cost to enchant a shield is half that of a weapon...and you get to use your shield bonus to hit/damage as well.Ah, for some reason I had it in my mind that the bashing property only allowed you to transfer enhancement bonus from the shield into the bash for that round. I didn't realize it increased die size. Interesting... I suppose I would have to see that in play, but still seems like breaking that would require an extremely generous DM, or a LOT of time and playing invested into that character.A +1 bashing shield costs 4,000 gp. Bashing increases the damage as if you went up 2 size categories from whatever it currently is. Shield spikes raise it 1 category, and they stack. This takes the shield from 1d6->1d8->2d6-3d6. Then if you are enlarged, it raises to 4d6. If you also have lead blade applied to the shield, it hits 6d6, which is an average of 21 damage shield slams.
I wouldn't qualify that as "breaking" stuff, but I would say it holds its own just fine. :P
Except isn't a heavy shield normally 1d4, and it's the spikes that raises it to 1d6 in the first place?
Here is a quick heromachine I did of a dual shield wielding character. He is clearly capable of defending himself while still bashing, either with a backhand swing or thrusting the points into someone's gut or face.
It's not historical, but it's practical and I don't see how you could call it any sillier than punching daggers or (plural of cestus?) cestii.
(I hope this link works)
dual shield wielder
Except isn't a heavy shield normally 1d4, and it's the spikes that raises it to 1d6 in the first place?Foghammer, thank you for your post. A couple of corrections for you though: A dual shield wielder can definitely keep up with the damage output as a spiked heavy shield of bashing has a base damage of 2d6 which is pretty damned good for a 1 handed weapon. Also, it is likely he will be spending less than the TWF character, and more equal with the two handed fighter as the cost to enchant a shield is half that of a weapon...and you get to use your shield bonus to hit/damage as well.Ah, for some reason I had it in my mind that the bashing property only allowed you to transfer enhancement bonus from the shield into the bash for that round. I didn't realize it increased die size. Interesting... I suppose I would have to see that in play, but still seems like breaking that would require an extremely generous DM, or a LOT of time and playing invested into that character.A +1 bashing shield costs 4,000 gp. Bashing increases the damage as if you went up 2 size categories from whatever it currently is. Shield spikes raise it 1 category, and they stack. This takes the shield from 1d6->1d8->2d6-3d6. Then if you are enlarged, it raises to 4d6. If you also have lead blade applied to the shield, it hits 6d6, which is an average of 21 damage shield slams.
I wouldn't qualify that as "breaking" stuff, but I would say it holds its own just fine. :P
Ah yes, quite correct. Going from memory here, so i apologize for the mistake. That means 4d6 not 6d6 at the high end, which is an average of 14 damage.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to drop in and say "Bad form, JJ, bad form."
As a Paizo employee, I think it poor of you to speak in the manner you did in this thread. It was borderline hypocritical, to call someone's idea silly and say that it has no place in the game. You may have been talking about rules in books, but it was an extremely thin veil on an insult to anyone who has ever thought this was a fun idea, stated repeatedly and challenged in a way that put yourself on a pedestal. Regardless of my opinion, I would call foul on this. I am disappointed in you as a professional for your tone here. A simple "We didn't feel it had a place in the rules, but you are welcome to make house rules" would have sufficed, just like it does every other time you say it.
Okay, okay. Obviously my comments on this thread have NOT had exactly the effect I'd been hoping for.
My original post was NOT an attempt by me to call someone idea's silly. It was to ask the people who DO like the idea of dual shield fighting to show me something from history, literature, movies, whatever that portrayed the fighting style in a way that didn't make it look silly. Regardless of any other elements in this thread, the dual-shield fighting style is NOT one that's infusing popular culture by storm. It's certianly no dual-scimitar fighting style!
What I was looking for was something to fix my own perception that dual shiled fighting was silly... but also to address my concern that if it never existed in real-life culture, it probably shouldn't be something that is a mundane fighting style that a non-magical class option like the fighter should be able to do. There ARE a lot of unrealistic fighting styles and unrealistic weapons in the game, yes, but when we put those in, we (us game designers, not just us at Paizo) tend to do so because we've been inspired by something to do so.
It's no coincidence that double weapons got into the game just after Darth Maul used a double lightsaber, in other words.
Nor is it a coincidence that my creation of the starknife back in the late '80s for my homebrew game was inspired by the glaive from Krull.
Are those weapons silly and perhaps unrealistic? Perhaps. Probably. But there are things (in both cases here, movies) that inspired game designers to follow in those footsteps. (That both of the movies I mention have not necessarily stood the test of time all that well in a lot of opinions is a topic for another thread, I suppose...).
I was only looking for something along the same inspiration for dual-shield fighting. And several folks did post some, which I appreciated.
But as with all things internet and gaming related, things got out of control, and folks started reading more into posts than I suspect was actually there. Including (and particularly) me.
I lost track of the conversation early on. The conversation wasn't "Is this a cool idea" but "How can this work?" I got distracted by my own preconceived notions about this unusual fighting style and got a bit too distracted by it.
For that, I apologize. I also apologize if my posts insulted or annoyed or angered anyone. That wasn't my intent, and I hope that my thousands and thousands of posts elsewhere on these boards and elsewhere support the fact that I don't make it a habit of seeking out posts only to crush dreams and smash hopes and accuse gamers of taking part in "badwrongfun."
All I ask in return is for folks to remember that I'm a gamer too. And as gamers, we ALL know how easy it is to get worked up about the things we're passionate about, whether it's the presence of guns in a fantasy RPG, just how good or bad Highlander and its sequels are, whether or not the book is better than the movie, whether it's a good or bad thing that some vampires sparkle, what alignment Batman and Jack Bauer and Dexter are...
...and whether or not dual shield fighting is silly or cool.
Being a gamer first and a businessman somewhere around 11th or 12th, I'm not always able to keep my own passions for what I think is cool or not in the game in check. I do try, and after reading back through this thread, it's obvious I should try harder.
So! I am indeed sorry if I've insulted anyone in this thread. And since several helpful posters HAVE addressed my question "had dual-shield fighting been portrayed outside of the game?" already, I'll bow out of the conversation again with the observation that, obviously, the game DOES support this fighting style. Shields, after all, are presented in the game as weapon options. And weapons, after all, are presented in the game with rules for dual wielding. So whether or not anyone (me or whomever) thinks it's a silly idea, it's still legal by the rules.
The vikings were known for carrying multiple shields however those were back ups.
I remember a conversation I had a while back during a living arcanist game. My character carried several daggers, 2 short swords, a great sword, a brace of pistols, had two muskets on his horse as well as a lance, plus a sling tied to his wrist.
Someone made a point of saying I must look ridiculous and be unable to move. I laughed and pulled out the book I had with me with pictures of Romans and all the equipment they carried... then the Celts and what they carried in battle, followed by the Greeks, Egyptians, and several other cultures that regularly carried several different weapons into battle with them on a regular basis.
Besides you want silly? Watch a guy swing around bat poo while talking gibberish.
*This post isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just trying to point out the entire conversation is extremely subjective and as such not one that really lends itself to an objective outcome.
Material components really are a huge joke. (Many of them really actually are lame jokes.) I've DMed for dozens of spellcasters and every single one of them knew, as if by some pan-humanic primal instinct, that the listed material components on most spells were incredibly stupid and never mentioned them in or out of character. It's kind of like the game itself knows that they're incredibly stupid, because it handwaves having to actually deal with them at every opportunity. The only material components anyone ever mentions are the costly ones, which coincidentally are not as corny and stupid as most of the common ones. (Some of the iconic spells, like Lightning Bolt and Fireball, have the corniest jokes for material components.)
Groups sort of acknowledge that if something happens to the component pouch then spells with "M" on that line stop working, but nobody ever mentions fiddling around with a bunch of tiny rods or things wrapped in other things. Especially in settings with a sort of Magepunk feel - including Pathfinder's default - fishing around for fruit rinds and tiny metal figurines feels incredibly fuddy-duddy and inappropriate for most characters.
|
|
Here is a quick heromachine I did of a dual shield wielding character. He is clearly capable of defending himself while still bashing, either with a backhand swing or thrusting the points into someone's gut or face.
It's not historical, but it's practical and I don't see how you could call it any sillier than punching daggers or (plural of cestus?) cestii.
(I hope this link works)
dual shield wielder
Punching daggers, aka katar, are real weapons that work fairly well in the hands of someone who is well-practiced in their use. I'm not so sure that they shouldn't be an exotic weapon though, since the historical weapon does come out of some esoteric traditions (at least for nominally-western styled societies in the game).
Dual cestii was a classic combination in the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome. Worked pretty well-- though in game terms, that's about like using dual spiked gauntlets, and there are more effective combinations of weapons you could be using instead. So, yes, I think one could still reasonably call the dual shield-wielder "sillier", since the other weapon(s) you name were historical and used effectively in the past ("sillier" not intended as an insult in this post-- and repeating what I said earlier-- not trying to tell you how to play, just pointing out something about historical weapons usage).
|
|
I'll admit, I haven't read the thread, but what about this? Fight example
In my opinion, it's a pair of bucklers that can be used for bludgeoning attacks. Maybe add a +1 to your normal strength damage. You could put a blade at the end for a pierce. Definitely a Monk weapon, IMHO.
EDIT: Better example
I think it's more of an exotic weapon that is extremely effective when used to block, than it is a shield. But it is an interesting set of weapons and looks like an effective style (although I don't know that you'd want to be trying to block a great sword with those).
|
|
All you guys KNOW NOTHING about historical weaponry!!!The different cultures have used all kinds of wierd weapons INCLUDING DOUBLE SHIELDS.Just take a look at DOUBLE TIGERHEAD STEEL SHIELDS for example:-P
Very interesting. Yes, as a "dual-shield" technique (in the context of this thread as well as historical usage), that looks like it works pretty well. Those would be awfully specialized light shields in D&D terms, rather than standard ones, but if your character is gonna train with and use shields like that, I would have no problem allowing it.
(although your comment that the people posting on this thread "know nothing about historical weaponry" is insulting and misplaced. I'm sure none of us know everything about historical weaponry-- we're only human after all, but there's more than a few people posting here who do know quite a bit about historical weaponry-- in my case, no, I don't know a whole lot about uncommon asian martial arts weapons, other than the ones the Japanese used-- see the point about "not knowing everything"-- but I do know quite a bit about historical weaponry in European cultures.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heya, James. Thanks for the post, bud. No hard feelings on my part. While I have only recently started posting I have trolled here and posted elsewhere and feel that I know you better than to judge you by your recent comments. And anyway, I was really just more concerned for the original poster who appears to be new as well. I imagine he may have felt a bit intimidated by having one of the designers drop in and have those kinds of comments about his idea. Well, that and the possible polarization of the rest of the Pathfinder fans that followed after.
Either way, no harm done. Also it seems like you may have come around some on the topic to finding it acceptable which is good. Any chance to broaden the view of a fellow gamer is a success in my book. And we are all gamers whether we are designers or not. I have had a hand in game design myself and have never known a game designer who wasn't also a gamer. Our lot is an opinionated one but the best games are the ones where all of our opinions can exist at the same game table.
I understand how easy it is to give in to your passion for something and let it color your objectivity. It's possible that I reacted too strongly to something that wasn't being put forward in an official capacity, but it's hard to separate that "(Creative Director)" tagline from the subject matter of a post and the implications that go along with that.
That said, I appreciate that JJ posted what more or less appears to be a retraction.
Now we need to work on that racism problem with the dwarves and gnomes... ;D
we're only human after all
Speak for yourself! ;)
|
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!
A Shoanti dual-wielding their shield/blades. Why not?