Yea I deleted that post when I realized you meant to still be attacking and get the benefit. I was under the assumption you meant that you'd get the defending property without having to shield bash.
I wonder if it's wrong to let someone hold 2 shields enchanted as both "shields" and weapons at the same time. It's like he's holding 2 weapons and 2 shields and benefiting from all their magic bonuses at once without paying the x1.5 price for more enchantments in the same slot, but I supose it would be no different from someone with 2 bucklers or with an enchanted boot-knife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one "Shield" item slot, so you can only benefit from one shield as a shield. You could theoretically declare a second shield to be just a weapon, if you wanted to dual shield.
|
It's all a bit easier than many are making it out to be.
1) A Shield is a weapon.
2) Shield enchantments, and Weapon enchantments are tracked separately, for the purposes of overall cost, and maximum total of enchantments.
3) The cost for a Masterwork Shield is an additional 150gp, but, as an exception to usual Masterwork weapons, do not confer the usual +1 to hit, as most weapons do.
4) When pricing a Shield for Special Materials, use the Shield price, and if none is listed, use the Weapon price.
5) Shield Master does not suggest any of the above is untrue. It simply allows for one to use all the Shield enchantments to AC, to effect the use of a Shield as a weapon, which drastically reduces cost. If already enchanted as a weapon, both enchantments apply, but only the higher of the two enchantment bonuses would be used. Things like Bashing, Flaming, or Agile, would all still apply.
So, do we have only 1 Shield Slot? Or should we be able to use more than one? I ment "Shield" as SHIELD Shield, not "Shield" weapon.
We know that there's only 1 Shield Slot in the slot list, but the innocent DM who wrote it was probably thinking at the time "Why would anyone wanna wield 2 shields at the same time?". So, I guess the real question should be:
Is it wrong to allow someone to wield more than one shield at once? Is it Overpower?
Should one be able to use only one Animated Shield, or, if we have the gold, should we be able to use several, like we can with dancing weapons?
A normal character is able to wield 2 buckelrs and 2 shields/klars tops, I think.
A Marilith is able to wield 6 bucklers and 6 shields/klars.
2nd# Can/Should we apply magic Shield Spikes to an already magicaly weaponized enchanted shield?
If you want to house rule additional shield slots I wouldn't worry too much about balance. A lot of tables probably don't even realize that limit exists.
You could possibly play a spiked shield as a double weapon. Separate enchants for the spikes and the shield as a weapon. You would still need to choose which one you are using for each shield bash.
Spikes are NOT a separate part of the shield. They are the shield. You don't enchant them 'separately'.
You could certainly ask if you could choose to use bashing or piercing damage on each attack, and alter the base damage to fit the damage type. But that's all the difference there is. Spikes just become part of the shield itself.
==Aelryinth
Using two shields could have a lot of mechanical benefits. Besides allowing you to benefit from Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization twice it would presumably cancel out all TWF penalties once you get Shield Master. At that point you could theoretically dual wield heavy spiked shields with no penalty. Unfortunately, running around with two shields just isn't in character for my Viking. I could certainly imagine a double klar user though.
The rules do in fact say that shield spikes "turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon", and I guess that implies that adding the spikes transforms the shield itself. It doesn't sound like you get a RAW choice to turn the shield back into a bludgeoning weapon on a per attack basis.
That/s RAW correct. Once you add Spikes, it's a martial piercing weapon with one die better damage.
Which is why I said you could 'ask' if you could switch to bludgeoning damage. Not using the spikes should certainly be an option, but you'd lose the extra damage. Going from 2-12 to 1-8 might suck, unless you're fighting skellies, however.
==Aelryinth
Example of Real Life Dual Shields (Double Tiger-Head Steel Shields):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9uILn0iCUs
Some folks find the idea that a longsword can't do piercing damage kind of silly and decide to house rule that you can make piercing attacks with such a weapon by taking a penalty on attack rolls and or decreasing the size of the damage die. I think it might have made sense for a lot of swords to do P/S damage like daggers. I can't think of many times in a game when this would matter except underwater (where by RAW morningstars are strangely effective?)
Honestly, if you're going to specialize in shields starting at 1st level with Improved Shield Bash seems like a good idea to me.
Yeah, switching damage types requires one of a couple of special feats/abilities that escape my memory at the moment.
They are also largely irrelevant, a skeleton's damage reduction is pretty low-impact. If it's a problem for your dude he's first level and probably shouldn't be specializing in shield yet anyway.
Well, when I said Skellies I meant skeletal undead, not just skeletons.
Note the DR of a lich, for example.
And no, there's no feat to switch the damage type of a shield.
Morningstars are 'useful' underwater because the rules say 'piercing damage', not 'thrusting weapons.'
You can thrust with all swords. You can pretty much slash with the tip of all but the lightest swords (epee, etc). However, you can only HACK with heavy swords.
So, yes, all swords should have piercing damage, and heavy swords should have slashing. I'd give a heavy rapier slashing damage, at the cost of a die size and threat range, since you can really only cut, not hack.
==Aelryinth
Most bashing with a shield is done with the edge (watch Gladiator for examples). When you add spikes, suddenly you can slam the face into them, and hit them with multiple pokey=pokes. Very different attacking style. Slamming the face into someone without spikes is really just pushing them around.
The bosses, the big round metal studs, aren't there for bashing. They are there to break swords and spears that smash into them, and help deflect stronger blows while not making the whole shield out of metal too heavy to carry.
==Aelryinth
Just having the edge isn't going to make it adamantine, anymore then an adamantine edge on a sword gives it the cutting power.
It has to be majority made of the metal, otherwise it simply isn't strong/secure enough. A shield is only as strong as its weakest part, after all. Even adding adamantine spikes does not make it an adamantine spiked shield...its not made of the metal, and 'just' the striking surfaces won't work any more then 'just' making the spikes on your Morningstar adamantine and the rest wood.
All or nothing by the rules, I'm afraid.
==Aelryinth
And no, there's no feat to switch the damage type of a shield.
Weapon Versatility does this.
"Most bashing with a shield is done with the edge"
My dwarf holds his flaming shield between his buttcheeks and does whirlwind with it while farting, is that too much to ask from a fantasy RPG? Best not to mix in the discussion how Russell Crowe, Captain America or Bugs Bunny would use a shield.
Just think of it this way:
For 3,000g your weapon bypasses DR/adamantine and ignores 20 hardness.
For 500 gp/lb your weapon bypasses DR/silver and weights half as much.
Your weapon can be made of only one special material.
While a real life shield bash is usually with the edge of the shield, this game isn't aware of that. There is basically very little reality in the d20 rule set for shields.
Weapon Versatility does this.
And no, there's no feat to switch the damage type of a shield.
So it does...if you have Weapon Focus in it.
I'm not sure I'd let a normal shield do non-bludgeon damage without modifications, but I suppose if a mace can do slashing without putting an edge on it, you can do it with a shield.
==Aelryinth
Weapon Versatility does this.
And no, there's no feat to switch the damage type of a shield.So it does...if you have Weapon Focus in it.
I'm not sure I'd let a normal shield do non-bludgeon damage without modifications, but I suppose if a mace can do slashing without putting an edge on it, you can do it with a shield.
==Aelryinth
A staff can do piercing damage and you can slash with a gauntlet. A shield dealing slashing or piercing seems to fit right in. ;)
Heh. I agree that if you MODIFY them, you can easily do slashing or piercing, and switching between the two should not be difficult at all.
But a Club doing slashing damage?
A round unspiked shield doing piercing?
I'll just chalk it up to pseudo magic and be on my way. UA attacks that pierce and slash are all the rage on anime and manga and stuff after all.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Weapon Versatility certainly bloodies the undergarments of a few DMs.
PCs will eventually do things that break the rules of physics, and logic.
Barbarians will literally punch through Adamantine and Walls of Force, whilst Wizards alter reality, and yet, doing slashing damage with a Club breaks the minds of some.
Yeah, the stupidest minor things break immersion for some, in spite of all other, much more logic defying things.
If shields can simultaneously be enchanted for defense and offense, then would an 8th level cleric be able to use magic vestment and greater magic weapon to give a normal shield a +2 bonus for both attack and defense?
Heh. I agree that if you MODIFY them, you can easily do slashing or piercing, and switching between the two should not be difficult at all.
If that works better for you then go for it. The feat instead can be a series of simple modifications to the weapon that allows other damage types when used correctly. Same mechanics, different fluff.
Weapon Versatility certainly bloodies the undergarments of a few DMs.
Yeah, that's true. Out of all the craziness possible, dealing a different type of damage seems an odd cutoff. But to each their own.
|
|
If shields can simultaneously be enchanted for defense and offense, then would an 8th level cleric be able to use magic vestment and greater magic weapon to give a normal shield a +2 bonus for both attack and defense?
Yes.
I don't see why this is complicated.
It is no different, mechanically, than doing the same thing with a Shield, and Longsword.
If shields can simultaneously be enchanted for defense and offense, then would an 8th level cleric be able to use magic vestment and greater magic weapon to give a normal shield a +2 bonus for both attack and defense?Yes.
I don't see why this is complicated.
It is no different, mechanically, than doing the same thing with a Shield, and Longsword.
Very cool! I guess it isn't complicated. I'm just new to the idea of shields as weapons, and I think I expected that it should be more complicated. I don't remember being able to do anything like this back in 1st edition AD&D.
I guess people get upset about the club doing slashing damage since no "sensible" explanation is offered. It isn't like, "You've learned to focus your ki/magical bloodline to subtly alter your club so that it does slashing damage" or "You've altered your equipment to make it more versatile". It seems more like...
Barbarian Ruth: "Yeah, I slice butter with my baseball bat. I slice it into nice, neat little pats."
DM: "Is that a magical property of your club?"
BR: "No, I'm just that good."
I mean, it doesn't really bother me, but I could imagine somebody finding it a little silly. On the other hand, it could help explain the story behind how golf got created.
It's a bit of an anime trope. A character slicing things in two with his unsharpened boken.
"I'm just that good" is enough of a justification for me in RL for tons of surprising things.