It was not a change, Tarantula. It was a clarification. The difference is vast. If it were only a change then it would have only been in the errata. The intention was the same the entire time. In other words, the designers did not feel that there needed to be a change in the rules because the intention was for it to always work that way. They changed the wording of the rules to allow it to work as intended.
From the errata listing of First to Fifth printing:
"Page 152—In the Armor Descriptions, in the Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel entry, in the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.” Repeat this change to the Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel entry."The text in shield bash said you can bash with a shield as an off-hand attack. There was no text elsewhere which stated otherwise. Therefore, at that time, by the rules as they were in the book, you could not use a shield in your "main hand" while two-weapon fighting.
Sean clarified that it was not intended to restrict shield bases to off-hand only attacks. As a result, they issued errata to remove the restricting text.
To break it down...
"Because when the feat was made, you couldn't main hand a shield..."
This is not true. Read Sean's words. He said, "The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to."
And that is correct. The text assumes it is an off-hand attack, but it doesn't have to be. It never had to be. And Sean made a clarification in the words to reflect this.
Read the rules as they were written. You could not, without a house rule, use a shield in your main hand. Errata was issued to correct this, as it was not intended. That does not mean that whoever wrote shield master was aware. I think that if main-hand shield bashes were possible, they would have used different language in shield master to limit the power with dual-wielded shields.
"The feat is balanced to reduce off-hand penalties, it is overpowered when it reduces both main-hand and off-hand (by dual wielding shields)."
This is also not true. But rather than prove my point here I'd ask you to prove yours as you are the one saying that the feat is not balanced as it is written. What is it that leads you to believe that with the feat investments that the dual-shielder has made it would not be balanced to remove the penalties as the feat says? This to me seems more like a house rule based on personal opinion rather than a reference to any balance related rulings.
Does any other feat exist which allows you to dual wield 2 one-handed weapons and take no attack penalties for either? While also getting a 2-3AC bonus at a minimum? And also letting you only enchant your shield, allowing you to save the cost of enchanting a weapon separately?
Feat investment? Only 3 feats. At levels 1, 6, and 11 for a fighter. Not a huge investment. If it was balanced as is, then why does everyone who asks about it get labelled a munchkin or a min-maxer? I think even you can see the vast value granted by shield master and dual-wielding shields, and simply don't want to see it reduced.
How do rules saying you can use it as an off-hand weapon mean or imply that you cannot also use it as your primary weapon?
Everyone who asks about dual shields gets labelled as a min-maxer because the vast majority of the members of this board a) have no idea what "overpowered" actually is; b) have a personal distaste for dual shields, assume everyone else also hates the idea, and thus the only logical conclusion is that people attempt it solely for mechanical gain despite not liking the image of it; and c) are giant living breathing personifications of the stormwind fallacy.
Try asking about it (dual shielding) on other forums. The response you'll get is very different than the one you get here.
If it was balanced as is, then why does everyone who asks about it get labelled a munchkin or a min-maxer?
Ask about anything on these forums and if its even the slightest bit good someone will call you that trust me.
Just look at any thread over 35 post on the rules thread in most of them some one gets called one of those things.
Shield Master fixes that.
Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.True, and that feat did not exist back then, but it could also be argued that the bashing property does nothing in that situation since it doesnt work as a weapon enhancement bonus.
As to the op, I think the whole concept of dual weilding shields is absolutely stupid thematically and wouldn't allow it on those grounds anyway. If you really wanna do dual weild greatsword damage just convince your DM to allow goliaths and oversized two weapon fighting from 3.5 and dual weild large bastard swords. At least that doesn't look so dumb.
I'm sorry, how is dual wielding shields thematically stupider than flailing around 2 giant swords? And what do you gain from banning your players from doing something they think is NOT thematically stupid? I'm so glad I don't play with people that like to shutdown creative ideas.
Also, what are you talking about when you say it's not an enhancement bonus? I don't recall anyone saying it was, as that'd be weird.
|
If it was balanced as is, then why does everyone who asks about it get labelled a munchkin or a min-maxer?Ask about anything on these forums and if its even the slightest bit good someone will call you that trust me.
Just look at any thread over 35 post on the rules thread in most of them some one gets called one of those things.
Quite simply, 'munchkin' means 'something I don't like' and has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics. It's like school children using the word 'gay'.
There is nothing anywhere in any version of any rule book that says that you can not shield bash with your main hand.
Thats RAW.
Thinking that it is actually not possible to do so is just plain ignorant.
Thats logic.
Luckily, I doubt anyone is actually claiming that yet they find some reason to complain about it anyway. These complaints, however, have no bearing or place in a rules forum.
Lune,
There is no rule that says the first player that says "flooglepuff" wins the game. Does that mean you can?
No. The ruleset is a permissive ruleset. You cannot do things unless there are rules for doing such. The rules did not say you could shield bash with your main hand, and therefore, you couldn't.
The ruleset is a permissive ruleset.
I am so glad that this is not true.
Flooglepuff!
How is he suffering -6/-6 to attacks? With TWF, and either 2 light shields or 1 light/1 heavy, it's -2/-2.
Nope, still just -4/-4.
Alternately, the ranger could just bash with one, and not TWF with them. This way he can delay picking up improved shield bash until he is going to start TWF.
Or just forgo 2 weapon fighting until you get shield master, fight with one shield till then (2Hing it for more damage), and never actually take the TWF feat since Shield Master removes all the TWF penalties anyway. Much later on when TWF is required for ITWF, GTWF, and Double Slice, perhaps pick it up, but before then use the earlier levels to focus on the bull rushing.
The build is quite feat-heavy. I like the idea of using 2 shields ASAP, but can see the mechanical appeal in holding off on it.
You know, I had a question for all the nay sayers here. And this is actually coming up in the campaign I am currently running.
When a sword and board fighting character realizes that he is doing more damage with his shield attack than he is with his weapon attack is there some logical in character reason that he would not take notice and adjust his fighting style to use two shields?
The characters know how much damage they are doing when they hit. When a character's life depends on how well he can fight doesn't it make the most sense to use the most effective means at his disposal to ensure that he lives?
...does that mean that the issue here really boils down to "I don't like that Paizo made shields so effective in combat with all their crazy feats!" Actually, I'm having issue trying to figure out what the original issue with dual-shielding was again. Was it just asthetic from an OOC perspective? Cause I can tell you that I'm not going to be worried overmuch about how pretty I look when I'm fighting to stay alive so long as it is effective. I mean, maybe certain characters care about that or certain players but then again...beauty is in the eye of the Beholder (tm). Personally, I like the idea of dual-shielding from both a mechanical and asthetic perspective.
I think for most naysayers its aethetics. Mechanically, they see the 2d6 1H damage, but seem to forget you spent an enhancement on it and it's still 20/x2, so it's disingenuous to go and compare it to a completely unmodified longsword.
I agree with you, though. I think 2 shields is awesome looking, I really love it.
So funny side story:
I once had a Paladin who two-handed a spiked heater shield like a WWF wrestler with a folding chair because his order was this weird misunderstood version of a death deity. They were dedicated to holding off death and the sacred texts said they couldn't use a weapon by religious decree. However the texts said "Be a shield for their people and the wicked will be punished with your shield".... so I smote the hell of evil-doers with a spiked shield.
True story
