Hey,
Just a quickie to ask how this works exactly...
If you use a Bastard Sword in your primary hand and a Shield with Shield Master in your Off-Hand, as a One Handed weapon in your primary hand doesn't effect two-weapon Fighting, would the attack routine be as follows:
-2 Sword, +0 Shield
Or, would it be -4 Sword, +0 Shield?
Option 1 seems to make the most sense to me, but I just wanted some clarification on this.
I'm making a Ranger/Fighter Switch Hitter, but not your average kind of Switch Hitter (he has no Bow).
Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is +2,0
Thanks Wraith! :)
(I'm sure you meant -2 there, haha)
You haven't stated which shield:
If it is a light shield, then the weapon get -2.
If it is a heavy shield, then the weapon get -4.
Ah, sorry. I thought I did.
Heavy.
Ah, and there's the blow right there. ¬_¬
That is correct. I assumed it was a light shield.
I did mean -2. :)
|
I've never noticed Shield Master before; sword & board doesn't 'butter my muffins', as they say.
Reading this thread made me look.
OMG!!!
This makes any other kind of two-weapon fighting obsolete! You get the full benefit of a magical shield and still fight with two weapons (although you could with armour spikes). You get a free bull rush without any risk. You completely negate TWF penalties for your off-hand weapon (I don't know of any feat that does that for a 'proper' weapon). And you get a magical weapon at half the price of a magical weapon, which also increases your AC like a magical shield. Because it is.
My next fighter is going to use a shield in each hand! Why didn't Captain America think of that?
Because he likes having a hand free to punch evil in the nose.
Yeah but it's -4 from like a 40
|
|
My point is, using two shields like this is far, far better than using two weapons; no attack penalties, half-price magic weapons; shield bonus to AC of up to +6 or +7.
But should it be that way? Why should using two shields be better than using two weapons? If it were a viable combat style warriors would have been doing this from pre-history up to the invention of the heavy machine gun!
It bothers me. It doesn't feel right. It's the same as a warrior being more of a badass using improvised weapons than with proper weapons. Do we really want our battlefields full of soldiers armed with twin shields and chair legs?
I have to agree with you. I am not going to argue RAW and what not but flavor wise it seems a bit silly to me as well.
The fact that they made Sword and shield useable makes me very happy and I even very much like the using just a shield alone as a weapon builds. But the two shield thing just does not jive with me.
Still this is a game and is supposed to be fun. To each their own and to each table its its own. I am not going to fault anyone over it.
But should it be that way? Why should using two shields be better than using two weapons? If it were a viable combat style warriors would have been doing this from pre-history up to the invention of the heavy machine gun!
There are certain discussions on the legality of two-shield fighting:
A) The rules for shield bash specifies that it can be used as an off-hand weapon. It is therefore possible to argue, that shields cannot be used as a primary weapon.
B) The shield master feat states: "while you are wielding another weapon". That part can be interpreted as wielding something else than a shield in the other hand.
However, I haven't seen a generel agreement on the issue, as some interpretes it otherwise. I don't mean the revive a discussion that is bound to be lengthy, and be based on semantics on a issue that the rules doesn't really describe.
And you get a magical weapon at half the price of a magical weapon
Shield Bash Attacks: "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."
A +1 shield (with the +1 enhancement bonus to AC) doesn't overcome DR/magic, it has to be enchanted as a weapon.
If it is enchanted as a weapon, the only difference is masterwork cost, and a lot of people rule that you must pay a full additional 300 for masterwork weapon (in addition to the 150 for MW shield). Either way, by the time you have BAB+11 (or level 6 ranger) that's a pittance.
A) The rules for shield bash specifies that it can be used as an off-hand weapon. It is therefore possible to argue, that shields cannot be used as a primary weapon.
The off-hand language was removed in errata:
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.
B) The shield master feat states: "while you are wielding another weapon". That part can be interpreted as wielding something else than a shield in the other hand.
If the shield is not considered a weapon, it doesn't work with Two-Weapon Fighting at all.
|
|
When I said 'half-price magic weapons' I was referring to the second half of the Shield Master feat:-
''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.''
Do you see what I mean?
B) The shield master feat states: "while you are wielding another weapon". That part can be interpreted as wielding something else than a shield in the other hand.If the shield is not considered a weapon, it doesn't work with Two-Weapon Fighting at all.
There is a difference between being considered a weapon and being considered "another weapon [than the shield you wear]". It can be interpreted in different, and I don't claim the mine is more correct than the other. However if a GM find himself disliking the idea about a character wielding two shields (a no penalties, being cheaper and better than most weapons), then he can reasonably disallow it, without having to go against clear rules text.
On the matter of overcoming DR, I don't quite agree.
Overcoming DR writes: "magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus...)".
Shield Master writes: "Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus"
Is there something I'm not aware of that makes the shield differ in this regard?
When I said 'half-price magic weapons' I was referring to the second half of the Shield Master feat
Ah, gotcha. I guess it's plausible for rangers to not have a magic weapon until 6th level, so they could go with a full-defensive shield. I would still expect them to mix it up a bit, maybe go full enhancement bonus on the shield part, and use weapon enchantments for special abilities.