See this thread.
"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield. 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."
Nothing is said about main or off hand. Those are terms only used when two-weapon fighting. If you only attack with a shield, it is your main hand, and used as a one-handed martial weapon that does bludgeoning damage.
yep, mention of shields as "an off-hand attack" was errata'd away
That's not bad. You don't get the stacked shield bonii, but you do get to bash without giving up one shield (which is as good as having both, since they don't stack).
Edit: The more I think about it, the more I like it. This thread goes in the favorites pile.
Yes you can.
You only get the shield bonus to AC from one though.
If you take the Shield bash chain of feats, you even get to keep your AC bonus.
As doomed hero says, there's nothing to stop you dual wielding two shields (except the fact that it would look utterly ridiculous and you should take an immediate penalty to your intimidate check because the bad guys are giggling at you). However, since you can only have one 'shield' bonus to your armour class I can't see any great benefit to it when you could be wielding a dwarven great axe in the other hand instead.
A roman legionary build would probably have the heavy shield as their main weapon and the short sword as their off hand weapon so using the shield as 'main' weapon shouldn't be a problem for anyone. Although I house rule it out unless the character has improved shield bash I don't think there's anything to stop a character with a shield (but no other weapon) taking attacks of opportunity, counting as armed etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might want to read through the thread I linked to, Elinor. Also Hasayfu Hung Kuen - Double Tiger-Head Steel Shields.
There's also This thread, covering the same topic.
I'll take responcibility for this thread.
Heh, I don't have time to read all of one thread, let alone three.
|
However, since you can only have one 'shield' bonus to your armour class I can't see any great benefit to it when you could be wielding a dwarven great axe in the other hand instead.
Basically, with the 'Shield Master' feat and two shields you can eliminate all attack penalties from two-weapon fighting. With 'Shield Slam' you can also use each of those many attacks to knock them around the battlefield (potentially taking AoO from allies the whole time if you also have 'Greater Bull Rush') and/or prone. It's silly, but can be developed into an effective combat build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[rant]And it's "DUAL" (meaning two) rather than "DUEL" (meaning formalized single combat).[/rant]
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Is there any chance that shield mastery will be errataed to be less ridiculus? Maybe by allowing to avoid penality with both hand regardless of the weapon?
|
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.
wield two of these guys:
Lion Shield
then get a third that's animated ;-)
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.
I think most people are assuming the use of Improved Shield Bash, which is a prerequisite for Shield Master.
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.
Unless you have this
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.
Since Improved Shield Bash is a prereq for Shield mastery, I'm pretty sure by RAW you get the bonus from one of them.
They won't stack though.And by RAW it seems that is indeed possible, but that's something that even if it might be RAW-legal I would hope a GM nixes for it's utter ridicilousness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you TWF, you won't get the AC bonuses.
Since Improved Shield Bash is a prereq for Shield mastery, I'm pretty sure by RAW you get the bonus from one of them.
They won't stack though.And by RAW it seems that is indeed possible, but that's something that even if it might be RAW-legal I would hope a GM nixes for it's utter ridicilousness.
(Disclaimer: Not a personal attack, just a bit of incredulousness. No offense intended.)
To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?
C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.
To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?
C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.
Yes, really. Because the guy is supposed to be just a guy. A trained soldier, perhaps, but just a guy.
Some of us play in campaigns with none of that stuff. Often not even monks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the few in this thread that suggested that the RAW for this was ridiculous: Really? This is where you draw the line? A world of jabberwocks that literally burble and whiffle, suicidal football-headed goblins, miniature Flying Spaghetti Monsters come to warn us about the Elder Whatsits From the Void Between the Stars, and blue magic-munching camels, a guy with two shields is just too much?
C'mon, lighten up a little. It doesn't stretch the bounds of believability any more than, well, 90% of what a monk can get away with (and I'm all for PF monks). Let the fighters and rangers have their fun.
Yes, really. Because the guy is supposed to be just a guy. A trained soldier, perhaps, but just a guy.
Some of us play in campaigns with none of that stuff. Often not even monks.
I'm sad for your games then. If you play to be the pizza guy, why play a fantasy game at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?
Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?
At the moment, Wizards yes, Clerics only in name (there is no divine magic in the world for the past several hundred years), Rangers yes but without magic, Paladins yes but again no divine magic. Goblins ? Probably but I haven't seen any. My bard can't cast cure spells, but don't ask the character why, they don't know. Don't ask me either, I'm not the DM.
The point is magic, being magic, is SUPPOSED to be fantastic. There is no analog. Even then, it's best when internally consistent.
Mundane fighting with weapons and armor is supposed to be, well, mundane. Unless you're at high levels with wuxia monks. And that's a different game.
As to pizza-guy: Let's say I'm playing a game set in a WWII analog, but with some of the 'fantasy' elements like the wierd superweapons (think "Hard Vacuum" if anyone else remembers that obscure game). Even then, an M1-Garand still works like an M1-Garand. I could be the baddest of badass special forces and I still wouldn't expect to be able to dual-wield and fire from the hip a pair of MG-34s, despite the presence of something far more fantastic like Space Battleship Yamato. That doesn't make me the pizza guy.
NinjaBurger delivery-person, maybe.
Edit: I can't spell, and to add Space Battleship Yamato.
I wouldn't allow it because it just looks silly in my head. Same reason I didnt allow my pally to train and ride a Garillon as his mount. It just breaks any since of immersion.
But again thats just my personal opinion. My players pitched a fit when I wouldnt allow the garillon riders of Mystra.... um no no and no.
Hopefully My paladin player doesnt read this thread.
Do you even have wizards? clerics? rangers? paladins? goblins? Or is it more of just a medieval muggle-fest?At the moment, Wizards yes, Clerics only in name (there is no divine magic in the world for the past several hundred years), Rangers yes but without magic, Paladins yes but again no divine magic. Goblins ? Probably but I haven't seen any. My bard can't cast cure spells, but don't ask the character why, they don't know. Don't ask me either, I'm not the DM.
The point is magic, being magic, is SUPPOSED to be fantastic. There is no analog. Even then, it's best when internally consistent.
Mundane fighting with weapons and armor is supposed to be, well, mundane. Unless you're at high levels with wuxia monks. And that's a different game.
As to pizza-guy: Let's say I'm playing a game set in a WWII analog, but with some of the 'fantasy' elements like the wierd superweapons (think "Hard Vaccuum" if anyone else remembers that obscure game). Even then, an M1-Garand still works like an M1-Garand. I could be the baddest of badass special forces and I still wouldn't expect to be able to dual-wield and fire from the hip a pair of MG-34s. That doesn't make me the pizza guy.
Sounds fun (the cleric part has been done with positive results), and you're welcome to fiat away anything you feel doesn't fit your campaign. But that doesn't make the setup objectively ridiculous in the face of even more ridiculous things in the core rules and the default campaign setting. Nothing is really mundane there.
You do realize that there are a few different martial arts that focus on dual-shields? Yet you consider them ridiculous and breaking your immersion. This is a fantasy game, and in a fantasy game, the ridiculous become reality.
If you want to limit yourself to only real world martial skills, then you have to allow dual shields because they are an actual martial art from at least 2 different regions and training methods (Asia and Africa).
It kind of boggles my mind that in Pathfinder, dual wielding shields is the kicker that breaks immersion.
For some people it's gunslingers. For other it's attempts at dual-wielding oversized weapons. Perhaps it's dinosaurs. Heck, some people don't even like the eastern flavored stuff in their pseudo-european medieval to renaissance fantasy.
I just find the "it's fantasy, man, so anything goes" arguement anytime someone complains about versimilitude to be just as boggling.
Edit: I *still* can't spell.
Edit 2: @Tels I've seen enough of these threads to know someone was going to bring that up. I'm not claiming it's impossible to fight with two shields, I'm claiming that if fighting with two shields was as effective as the game makes it, it would have been far more wide-spread.
I'm not so much against dual wielding shields.
But I think the feat that takes away the penalties for TWF with them was clearly not meant for that purpose but instead for a sword and board fighter who also smashes with the shield.
to me it's not so much about breaking immersion, I dont think dual shield fighting is that bad, even thematically cool looking, it's that they are wanting to power game it to the extreme of throwing great sword damage with both hands with no penalties at all. power gaming is one thing, Munchkinizing is a whole level of magnitude higher. I'd be ok with 2 light spiked shields or even non spiked heavies, but going that completely over the top is begging to die by god strike just as bad as a CG drow named droozt with a figurine of wondrous power tiger swinging a pair of scimi's.
Just my opinion as a DM.
Asta
PSY
I wouldn't allow it because it just looks silly in my head. .
OK, now imagine that they're forearm bucklers with spikes. I don't see it being as silly as some people want to make it out to be.
I'm not so much against dual wielding shields.
But I think the feat that takes away the penalties for TWF with them was clearly not meant for that purpose but instead for a sword and board fighter who also smashes with the shield.
This is probably true, but if you are dual wielding shields for damage isn't that penalty enough? :)
So you're doing greatsword damage but requiring two attack rolls to accomplish it?
I don't see the problem.
Edit: Wait, 2d6 per hit? A spiked heavy shield is only 1d6.
I'm not seeing where the additional damage is coming from either. Can you please explain it?
Bashing enchantment, lets the shield count as a +1 and two sizes larger.
1d6 turns into 2d6+1 then.
And that on both shields.
Don't forget shield master lets you count the shield enhancement as a weapon enhancement for to hit/damage as well.