Used by a historical military? So you don't allow the whip, club, rapier, sickle, net, trident, or any monk, double, or nonhuman racial weapons in your games? That's ridiculously harsh for a game that is about heterogeneous adventuring parties rather than organized militaries.
That's just a guy trying to capitalize on wu-shu mania by marketing a vid.By 'real life: I mean a historical example, used by a military.
Things I wish were standard issue military equipment at some point (but severely doubt they were):
- Ratfolk tailblade
- Sword cane (most fancy army ever!)
- Dwarven dorn-dergar
- Piston maul
- Ripsaw Glaive
- Bladed scarf (bonus points if it is part of a uniform that includes a sword cane)
The point being, saying "dual wielding shields was never an accepted military fighting style, and thus should not be allowed" is a bit silly. There are plenty of weapons in PF that never saw use militarily, but are pretty cool. PF is a fantasy RPG, not a real-world weapons simulator.
Feather Fall works fine if you imagine it kicking in relative to the ground.
You free-fall as normal until about a hundred feet up, then experience a rapid ( and probably uncomfortable) but not dangerous deceleration.
Then you touch down gently, as light as a feather.
Have you seen Underworld? Remember when Seline jumped off the skyscraper and hit the ground walking? That's feather fall.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've used two sheilds in weapons practice. It was on a whim, and kind of silly, but it was surprisingly effective.
I choreograph fights for stage and film and have a pretty extensive martial arts background, so I'm pretty adaptable when it comes to picking up (or making up) unorthodox fighting styles.
I found that using two shields from a boxer's crouch and striking with the edges of the sheilds in a very direct, aggressive style was extremely effective, especially against long weapons. I landed about 8 blows for every one I took against swords and polearms. I could get inside someone's guard with relative safety (which is usually the biggest hurdle when using weapons with short teach)
Short weapons and flexible weapons gave me a lot of trouble though. Since our reach was the same, getting close gave me no real advantage. Flexible weapons swung at my legs would wrap and strike practically every time. Another disadvantage I discovered was that if someone grabbed the edge of either shield and pulled across my front, it effectively stopped my other shield from being able to get around and hit. I was always able to get free, but I'd usually get hit in the side at least once.
I could absolutely buy two-shields as an effective combat style, particularly for a civilization with a "bulldozer" approach to combat, like dwarves. It practically requires heavy armor on the legs and back, but it still works really well against the most common battlefield weapons.
Gladiators are no more soldiers than Chinese martial artists are.
Although you are technically right, he might be referring to the Third Civil War of Ancient Rome, where the gladiators Spartacus and Crixus lead an uprising of the slaves.
The Roman legionaires really had a tough time with the skill of some of the gladiators, even though the outnumbered them from the beginning. Therefore gladiators could be argued to be kinda warproven.However personally I wouldn't account historical sources for much in Pathfinder. "Some soldiers used this weaponry for their historical Phalanxes. If my single alone standing uses this to fight 20 feet tall demon, it will legitimately work!"
Just take what seems cool and aesthetically pleasing and iconic for you. For me dual wielding shields isn't, while net and trident is. However everyone should decide this for himself.
Gladiators would also be given opportunities to serve as Skirmishers for the Legions once they proved their loyalties. But so where Shoalin Monks and other Martial Artists. Heck, Most Japanese Swordsmen and Commanders were trained in Martial Artists. That isn't taking into account the Boxer Rebellion and such.
Dual Wielding Shields would be more for the Shield Bearers where the extra defense is effective to knock the target off-balance for your partner to strike down.
I could see a Dwarf Army with Twin Shields on the front line with the second line either using a Reach Weapon or using Lunge with a Non-Reach Weapon.
Feather Fall works fine. It slows your falling rate to 60 feet per round. So if you fall from 24000' it'll take you 400 rounds to get there. I hope you brought warm clothing.
Not quite sure what Nezzarine's problem is with falling. Apart from a perverse reading of the Jump rules which limit the length of a jump (and by inference, a fall) to your movement in 1 round, I can't find anything which says you fall an unlimited distance in 1 round.
I've used two sheilds in weapons practice. It was on a whim, and kind of silly, but it was surprisingly effective.
I choreograph fights for stage and film and have a pretty extensive martial arts background, so I'm pretty adaptable when it comes to picking up (or making up) unorthodox fighting styles.
I found that using two shields from a boxer's crouch and striking with the edges of the sheilds in a very direct, aggressive style was extremely effective, especially against long weapons. I landed about 8 blows for every one I took against swords and polearms. I could get inside someone's guard with relative safety (which is usually the biggest hurdle when using weapons with short teach)
Short weapons and flexible weapons gave me a lot of trouble though. Since our reach was the same, getting close gave me no real advantage. Flexible weapons swung at my legs would wrap and strike practically every time. Another disadvantage I discovered was that if someone grabbed the edge of either shield and pulled across my front, it effectively stopped my other shield from being able to get around and hit. I was always able to get free, but I'd usually get hit in the side at least once.
I could absolutely buy two-shields as an effective combat style, particularly for a civilization with a "bulldozer" approach to combat, like dwarves. It practically requires heavy armor on the legs and back, but it still works really well against the most common battlefield weapons.
That's pretty cool actually.
My objection to that comment about two shield usage was the way it responded to the comment before it.
Some Guy: "Shields are underpowered. No one picks sword and board over two-hander"
Other Guy: "No way, man. Dual wielding shields is awesome overpowered!"
And I'm like no... That's not what Some Guy was talking about.
That's pretty cool actually.My objection to that comment about two shield usage was the way it responded to the comment before it.
Some Guy: "Shields are underpowered. No one picks sword and board over two-hander"
Other Guy: "No way, man. Dual wielding shields is awesome overpowered!"And I'm like no... That's not what Some Guy was talking about.
Other guy would be me. You wanna explain how my response was out of line when I showed why his players and he were wrong in saying that two handed weapons were overpowered?
Seriously all I did was state the benefits and flaws in shield usage. Would you like to tell me what I said that was wrong?
Picture that guns existed in pathfinder in a different form than now, and they kinda suck... But for some bizarre reason, they work very well as BLUNT WEAPONS.
Now if someone says, "It's too bad guns suck so bad that nobody makes a gunslinger".
If somebody then replies with "Guns don't suck. They're totally overpowered" you're totally not getting the point.
Using guns as blunt weapons is not the point of guns. Guns are to shoot things with. Some Guy complained about shields sucking (his intent was to use shields as, well, shields), and you reply that shields don't suck because you can dual wield them and that's totally overpowered (which doesn't actually deal with the issue that Some Guy had with shields in the first place).
Shields are both Weapons and Armour.
Ironically, in history they were considered the most important piece of gear for a variety of reasons.
Though I think the Medieval Era had my favorite reason... It was a place to put your Heraldry to where it was easy to see...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As How to Train Your Dragon teaches, given the choice between a shield and a sword, go with the shield every time.
You put two equally skilled warriors in an arena, and give one a shield and the other any other weapon of their choice, I'm going to vote on the guy with the shield.
Unless the other guy picks a flail. Flails cheat.
Any Chain Weapon or Hammer is going to be better than the Shield. Though the Shield can win IF the user knows how to fight with it.
Knowledge Arcana is used to identify auras using detect magic, spells that just targeted you, and spell effects that are in place.
It doesn't matter if the spell isn't actually, you know, ARCANE in origin.
Knowledge Religion, on the other hand, does nothing to help you identify magic of any kind, not even divine magic.
Spellcraft really shouldn't be its own skill.
Let Knowledge Arcana deal with Arcane Spells, Knowledge Religion deal with Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor Spells, and Knowledge Nature deal with Druid and Ranger spells.
This is how our table deals with Spellcraft; you need ranks in those skill to even make the check. So if you have no ranks in Knowledge (Nature), you don't know swat about druid or Ranger spells.Spellcraft really shouldn't be its own skill.
Let Knowledge Arcana deal with Arcane Spells, Knowledge Religion deal with Cleric, Paladin, and Inquisitor Spells, and Knowledge Nature deal with Druid and Ranger spells.
I would not like that rule.
Why sould Joe farmer know lots of stuff about druid spells just because he is knowledgable in the workings of nature?Why would someone be able to tell you everything about a divine scroll of cure light wounds but be puzzled by a scroll of cure light wounds written by a witch or druid?
I'd rather just remove knowledge arcana and use spellcraft instead. Or remove spellcraft and use knowledge arcana instead. But splitting it to several skills is a bad idea in my opinion.
Feather Fall works fine. It slows your falling rate to 60 feet per round. So if you fall from 24000' it'll take you 400 rounds to get there. I hope you brought warm clothing.
Not quite sure what Nezzarine's problem is with falling. Apart from a perverse reading of the Jump rules which limit the length of a jump (and by inference, a fall) to your movement in 1 round, I can't find anything which says you fall an unlimited distance in 1 round.
The complaint(If I understood correctly) wasn't about how feather fall works, but rather how falling works.
An actual freefall from space takes several minutes before the guy reaches the ground. In PF, there are no rules for maximum falling velocity. It is assumed that all falls take less than a round.
So if I fall from 10 miles up, it takes 1 round, I cast feather fall right at the end, and by RAW, I get to basically travel 10 miles in 6 seconds without any harm. Feather fall isn't the problem, traveling 10 miles in 6 seconds is the problem.
Picture that guns existed in pathfinder in a different form than now, and they kinda suck... But for some bizarre reason, they work very well as BLUNT WEAPONS.Now if someone says, "It's too bad guns suck so bad that nobody makes a gunslinger".
If somebody then replies with "Guns don't suck. They're totally overpowered" you're totally not getting the point.
Using guns as blunt weapons is not the point of guns. Guns are to shoot things with. Some Guy complained about shields sucking (his intent was to use shields as, well, shields), and you reply that shields don't suck because you can dual wield them and that's totally overpowered (which doesn't actually deal with the issue that Some Guy had with shields in the first place).
Dude, shields are weapons in pathfinder. They're weapons that are treated as armor for pricing of enchantments. They're listed in weapon sections. You can find them under the fighter weapon training lists.
Aka. as determined by pathfinder they're weapons and shields.
My comparison still holds.
My hypothetical guns had two uses. Hitting or shooting. They were more effective at hitting than shooting, despite being designed with the intent of shooting and despite their intent being that they should be used to shoot things. When you think of guns you think of shooting, not of someone bashing people with the blunt end.
Same with shields. Shields are designed to defend yourself while wielding an offensive weapon with your other hand. The problem is that in pathfinder that is apparently sub-optimal to the alternative use, which is to wield TWO shields at the same time. Notice the same thing here. You don't see knights in movies wielding two shields. You don't freaking ASSOCIATE shields with dual-wielding.
If you decide to wear full plate but walk around without the pants fullplate doesn't suck. You just don't know how to use it.
What does THAT have to do with anything? Are you saying that if you use shields ineffectively you deserve any problems you get? But the point of shields is to protect yourself. Dual wielding them is some idiocy that optimisers realized later on.
It seems to me that a power attack made with two hands would be more powerful than with one hand.
Now what doesn't make sense (as mentioned in other threads) is that I can shove a gallon of arsenic down somebody's gullet and they can still have a chance to be completely unaffected by it.
One reason why I love ASoI&F RPG is Shields are listed as Weapons and have the Defensive Property. So you can Duel Wield them while getting both Defensive Bonuses. The problem is there is nothing like Improved Shield Bash so when ever you attack with them you lose the Bonus to Defense.
I'm saying that shields are not just to protect yourself, not in pathfinder. It's not something just for optimizer. Even if you don't dual wield them it's assumed you will be bashing with them. There are feat chains for it, there are archetypes for it, there are critical feats, combat maneuvers, and all other kinds of things. Heck, they're listed in the fighter's weapon training.
My point is, shields in pathfinder are offensive AND defensive. Your point does not stand because you assume they're there for defense. Not true, there are huge amounts of choices for making them offensive things. Dual wielding them might be slightly cheezy but even if you do sword and board, once you get the 11th level feat to get rid of dual wielding penalties, depending on feats and archetype the shield might be the better weapon overall.
I'm talking specifically about dual wielding shields. Not about using one shield by itself, or one shield with a weapon. Even using one single shield without a weapon is kinda idiotic, but it looks far better than dual wielding them.
The point of the full plate is you're only half using it. You're only wearing half a suit of armor. Does that mean full plate sucks? If you wear it like that yeah, you're only wearing half a suit of armor. Same goes for shields. They're designed to attack and defend with. It's a huge part of their design. So of course if you only defend with them they'll suck.
They're not meant to just defend. They're weapons. Using only half their usage and arguing they suck is like wearing half a suit of armor and arguing it sucks.
Well, let's rewind to my gun analogy:
The gun is better used as a blunt weapon than as a firearm. If you use it as a firerarm you are technically wearing only half an armour. You're not using it to its full potential.
That doesn't make it a sensible thing.
Edit: BTW it's been shown that dual shield wielding is found in real life. Apparently some people do associate with dual shield wielding. Just because you don't doesn't mean no one does. It seems more like that this is versimilitude...
A suitable method for resolving this is to google image. If it's an established cultural concept it should exist aplenty on google image (unless it's very niche). No such images were found, except a modern drawing that turned out to be about some guy wanting some MMORPG to include support for dual wielding shields. His opinion was shot down because they thought it was too stupid.
I tried googling as well, but all I found was information pertaining to dnd or pathfinder.
Wasn't there something about being able to take actions if you fell from over 600 feet that seemed to imply it took more than one round?The complaint(If I understood correctly) wasn't about how feather fall works, but rather how falling works.
An actual freefall from space takes several minutes before the guy reaches the ground. In PF, there are no rules for maximum falling velocity. It is assumed that all falls take less than a round.
So if I fall from 10 miles up, it takes 1 round, I cast feather fall right at the end, and by RAW, I get to basically travel 10 miles in 6 seconds without any harm. Feather fall isn't the problem, traveling 10 miles in 6 seconds is the problem.
I just took a quick look at the SRD, and didn't find anything about taking actions while falling.
The only thing close is
A character cannot cast a spell while falling, unless the fall is greater than 500 feet or the spell is an immediate action, such as feather fall. Casting a spell while falling requires a concentration check with a DC equal to 20 + the spell's level. Casting teleport or a similar spell while falling does not end your momentum, it just changes your location, meaning that you still take falling damage, even if you arrive atop a solid surface.
It says > 500 feet gives you a single spell, which is even wierder, because by RAW, the duration of my fall depends on the casting time of the spell I choose to cast while falling. I fall 501 feet and I cast animal messenger on my way down I take 1 minute to hit the ground. I fall 10 miles and I cast fireball on the way down my fall takes 1 standard action(~3 seconds). If I want to pull a blanket out of my pack and try to use it like a parachute, I can't because only spells are allowed, not other actions....
Or the fact that a War Lance was a Heavy Spear not one of those Asinine Cone Shaped Lances.
& yet against most of everything else is immune to trip or has a very high CMB versus Trips.
I'd like to open something for discussion: are there any silly, counter-intuitive, or just plain bland rulesets that you'd like to see reworked? Something you'd be interested in if, say, a third-party product or amateur "fix" came along to address the rule.
*wink*
I know the Craft rules get a lot of flack, but I'll give you another example:
The sundering / damaging objects rules. It is entirely possible (very easy, even) to sunder a worn headband or circlet (with a large axe or hammer, even) without harming the wearer. It is also harder to sunder a longbow with a dagger (or a sturdy pair of scissors; snip!) than it is with a flail.
Corner-cases? Probably! But if you had the chance to decide which rules got a little extra love, what rulesets would you single out as "wonky?"
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
CMB and CMD... For me they bog down/slow down the game. If I could get one well written resource with appropriate diagrams, tables, and examples that I could go to I would be very happy.
Other than that I have players who love to craft or use profession and a resource with feats, etc that are specific to those skills would be a great addition to my library. A focus on the "soft" or roleplay skills would be welcome.
CMB and CMD... For me they bog down/slow down the game. If I could get one well written resource with appropriate diagrams, tables, and examples that I could go to I would be very happy.
Admittedly I am not a huge fan of these either, but compared to the 3.5 version, they are simplicity itself.
|
This makes it pretty much impossible to use illusions and similar non-violent spells in social situations.
Sounds like a great change to me. Magic shouldn't be subtle, at best the cause should be unknown like the lights dimming for a second or the smell of sulfur which should allow a spell craft check.
|
|
Disagree. The Still, Silent, and Eschew Materials feats not only cost 3 feat slots (the most precious thing in the game), but also up the spell level by 2. That's JUST to cast the spell without leaving traces so that it could be identified by Spellcraft. It is against the intent of those three feats, especially the Still Spell feat, to have visual effects that give away the spell even if all 3 feats are in effect.
Feats are not the most precious thing in PF, spell casting is. 1 first level spell is greater than a feat. Just compare true strike, grease, endure elements, or Mage armor to any feat or feat chain.