| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where exactly does it mention, "If you are holding your shield in both hands, it is no longer equipped as armor, you are no longer performing a shield bash, therefore it is no longer a weapon, and it would have to be used as an improvised weapon."
The shield says 'when used in this way,' which is a shield bash. A shield bash is using an equipped shield as a weapon, hence the explanation of losing its armor bonus.
When used for a shield bash, which is hitting someone with your properly equipped shield, the shield is a weapon.
I also think you do indeed need to have donned your shield before it could be used, either as armor or a weapon. So if there is a sword and a shield on a rack, I can grab the sword (move action) and attack with it. If I want the shield instead, I can grab it as a move action, but then I either have to spend another move action to don the shield, or I can attack with it as an improvised weapon, since I am not in fact using it to shield bash. At that point it isn't any different than any other large flattish thing I might pick up to hit someone with.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.
Shields state that they are strapped to an arm.
IF (shield is strapped to an arm) THEN (shield is being used properly).
By a strict reading of RAW, the second arm must also be strapped to the shield to receive the 1.5 x Str mod.
Is the shield not still strapped to an arm? It is? Then it is still being used properly even if the other hand gripping it to provide more force isn't strapped to it.
Your statement here is a non sequitur.
When I was told that grip does not matter, I referenced the Longspear and how per the FAQ, grip matters.
Grip matters in that instance. You have yet to provide a rule that indicates that grip matters in the case of a shield, other than the rule that it has to be strapped to an arm, which it is. "You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand," says the CRB. It does not say "you strap your shield to any arms you are using the shield with".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where exactly does it mention, "If you are holding your shield in both hands, it is no longer equipped as armor, you are no longer performing a shield bash, therefore it is no longer a weapon, and it would have to be used as an improvised weapon."
The shield says 'when used in this way,' which is a shield bash. A shield bash is using an equipped shield as a weapon, hence the explanation of losing its armor bonus.
When used for a shield bash, which is hitting someone with your properly equipped shield, the shield is a weapon.
I also think you do indeed need to have donned your shield before it could be used, either as armor or a weapon. So if there is a sword and a shield on a rack, I can grab the sword (move action) and attack with it. If I want the shield instead, I can grab it as a move action, but then I either have to spend another move action to don the shield, or I can attack with it as an improvised weapon, since I am not in fact using it to shield bash. At that point it isn't any different than any other large flattish thing I might pick up to hit someone with.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.
I've never claimed to use it with 2 hands without it being strapped on properly.
First i don my Heavy Shield then i use my second open hand to grasp the shield, third i slam it in the face of my foe.
No where do i break a rule.
Its equipped correctly.
Its a One Handed Weapon.
I used it with both hands.
So i get 1.5 STR.
So what exactly is wrong with it rules wise?
And enough with the long spear FAQ it has no bearing hear since i'm using a weapon in its intended way.
|
So if I enchant it with the throwing property I must strap it to my arm, chop off my arm, and throw the whole thing, otherwise it's not a weapon?Is the shield a one handed weapon? Yes, when it is equipped as armor and used to sheild bash.
Throwing already has this problem with natural weapons and "worn" weapons like cestus. It's best if we consider it a separate problem and not bother discussing it in this thread.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.
If there was a rule that stated or implied that a shield bash was an improvised weapon when used two-handed I'd agree with you. As far as I can determine, there is no such rule. You're making vague references to strapping a shield to both arms simultaneously but there's nothing in the rules that indicates such a necessity.
The FAQ is specific to reach weapons used as improvised weapons to threaten adjacent squares. It cannot be generalized to a completely different type of weapon used in a completely different manner for a completely different purpose.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.If there was a rule that stated or implied that a shield bash was an improvised weapon when used two-handed I'd agree with you. As far as I can determine, there is no such rule. You're making vague references to strapping a shield to both arms simultaneously but there's nothing in the rules that indicates such a necessity.
The FAQ is specific to reach weapons used as improvised weapons to threaten adjacent squares. It cannot be generalized to a completely different type of weapon used in a completely different manner for a completely different purpose.
There also is nothing in the rules that indicates it is not necessary.
Is it wrong that I suddenly want to play a monk with a heavy shield on a chain which he kicks/punches into his enemies and then yanks back? Furthermore, he can ride down stairs and over rough terrain by gravity or by attaching the chain to some other object that can pull him?
Is that so wrong?
And for the record, because I think it might have been lost, I was only pointing out that a strict reading of RAW would indicate that you must strap both arms to the shield. I am not advocating that using two hands is not allowed or that the above is in fact RAI.
It was only to point out that RAW is a fickle beast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for the record, because I think it might have been lost, I was only pointing out that a strict reading of RAW would indicate that you must strap both arms to the shield. I am not advocating that using two hands is not allowed or that the above is in fact RAI.
It was only to point out that RAW is a fickle beast.
No by a strict reading of RAW you need to strap your forearm in the shield and grip with one hand.
Then you can use the Heavy Shield as a weapon.
And it just so happens to be listed in the Martial One Handed Weapons
And it just so happens that One Handed Weapons can be used in two hands for 1.5 STR.
And oh my i'm swinging my Heavy Shield in your base for 1.5 STR. Damn how did i get here again. Oh right the rules.
You added the silly part about the second hand being strapped in being required to use both hands.
I've never claimed to use it with 2 hands without it being strapped on properly.
First i don my Heavy Shield then i use my second open hand to grasp the shield, third i slam it in the face of my foe.
No where do i break a rule.
Its equipped correctly.
Its a One Handed Weapon.
I used it with both hands.
So i get 1.5 STR.So what exactly is wrong with it rules wise?
And enough with the long spear FAQ it has no bearing hear since i'm using a weapon in its intended way.
Ok, we are in at least partial agreement, and perhaps I see where we are diverging.
Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm. In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it. Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon' and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm.
I'll admit that is is possible to argue that you can strap a shield to your arm and still somehow use two hands to bash with it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me or in line with the way the rules for bashing are written. I will though freely admit that this is a corner case and the rules interactions don't 100% clearly spell it out, and I could see developers ending up going either way.
I remain convinced though that given the current language, you can't adjust your grip on a shield and use it with both hands the way you can a regular one handed weapon.
|
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.If there was a rule that stated or implied that a shield bash was an improvised weapon when used two-handed I'd agree with you. As far as I can determine, there is no such rule. You're making vague references to strapping a shield to both arms simultaneously but there's nothing in the rules that indicates such a necessity.
The FAQ is specific to reach weapons used as improvised weapons to threaten adjacent squares. It cannot be generalized to a completely different type of weapon used in a completely different manner for a completely different purpose.
There also is nothing in the rules that indicates it is not necessary.
That's moot - because you can't prove a negative. Flawed logic.
I just pointed out that it does state how to wear/hold a shield. We all agree that you can't just put your hand wherever you like or imagine might work best. The Longspear FAQ shows that it must be used in the correct manner. The only RAW we have as to the correct manner is strapped to a forearm. Logically, if sticking to strict RAW, the other hand must be used in the same manner.
We all know that is ridiculous. But that was the point. Strict RAW seldom works. It may, or may not, work for either side of this argument.
Reading half of RAW (2x str mod for 2 hands on one hand weapon) but ignoring how the weapon is equipped, works one way.
Reading half of RAW (how the weapon is equipped) but ignoring the 2x str mod for 2 hands on one hand weapon works the other way.
Where does the other hand go? By strict reading of RAW?
I've never claimed to use it with 2 hands without it being strapped on properly.
First i don my Heavy Shield then i use my second open hand to grasp the shield, third i slam it in the face of my foe.
No where do i break a rule.
Its equipped correctly.
Its a One Handed Weapon.
I used it with both hands.
So i get 1.5 STR.So what exactly is wrong with it rules wise?
And enough with the long spear FAQ it has no bearing hear since i'm using a weapon in its intended way.
Ok, we are in at least partial agreement, and perhaps I see where we are diverging.
Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm. In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it. Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon' and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm.
I'll admit that is is possible to argue that you can strap a shield to your arm and still somehow use two hands to bash with it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me or in line with the way the rules for bashing are written. I will though freely admit that this is a corner case and the rules interactions don't 100% clearly spell it out, and I could see developers ending up going either way.
I remain convinced though that given the current language, you can't adjust your grip on a shield and use it with both hands the way you can a regular one handed weapon.
Quote the rule that backs up your ridiculous claim.
Which is using a Heavy Shield in one hand isn't the same as using every other one handed weapon because, reasons.
I think by the rules you can use it two handed.
Now for fun what does everyone think of the scizore. ;)
I just pointed out that it does state how to wear/hold a shield. We all agree that you can't just put your hand wherever you like or imagine might work best. The Longspear FAQ shows that it must be used in the correct manner. The only RAW we have as to the correct manner is strapped to a forearm. Logically, if sticking to strict RAW, the other hand must be used in the same manner.
We all know that is ridiculous. But that was the point. Strict RAW seldom works. It may, or may not, work for either side of this argument.
Reading half of RAW (2x str mod for 2 hands on one hand weapon) but ignoring how the weapon is equipped, works one way.
Reading half of RAW (how the weapon is equipped) but ignoring the 2x str mod for 2 hands on one hand weapon works the other way.
Where does the other hand go? By strict reading of RAW?
I don't care about your "logic" or "opinions". Link a rule or what you say has no bearing on this RULES discussion.
No one is ignoring how it is equipped.
"You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else."
No where in this does it say that if i use a second hand to gain 1.5 STR on an attack do i need to strap my other arm to it. You have added that making what your saying NOT a rule.
The other hand just goes anywhere on the shield. Since there isn't any rules for that.
And i swear if you counter back with "oh but longspear faq".
It doesn't matter you've already been told why that is NOT a valid FAQ for what is being discussed.
I can back up my argument with rules. You can't.
One Handed Weapons can be used with 2 hands to gain 1.5 STR.
A Heavy Shield is freaking listed as a ONE HANDED WEAPON.
No where in ANY rules book does it mention anything about preventing a person from using a Heavy Shield in 2 hands, NO WHERE.
Thus i can use it to gain 1.5 STR. That is unless you can provide a LINK to something that says i can't.
Quote the rule that backs up your ridiculous claim.
Which is using a Heavy Shield...
I don't see any reason for you to take a hostile tone. I haven't insulted you and I have indeed attempted to outline my logical progression. Saying 'ridiculous' and demanding for a specific sentence in the rules, when we have already agreed that one doesn't exist is not very useful.
You seem to agree that wielding a shield is not the same as wielding other weapons. i.e. it has to be donned first, while other weapons only need to be drawn. To me this has obvious connections with wielding and how you can wield it. To you it does not. Fair enough.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.If there was a rule that stated or implied that a shield bash was an improvised weapon when used two-handed I'd agree with you. As far as I can determine, there is no such rule. You're making vague references to strapping a shield to both arms simultaneously but there's nothing in the rules that indicates such a necessity.
The FAQ is specific to reach weapons used as improvised weapons to threaten adjacent squares. It cannot be generalized to a completely different type of weapon used in a completely different manner for a completely different purpose.
There also is nothing in the rules that indicates it is not necessary.
That's not how the rules work.
And for the record, because I think it might have been lost, I was only pointing out that a strict reading of RAW would indicate that you must strap both arms to the shield. I am not advocating that using two hands is not allowed or that the above is in fact RAI.
In order to wear a shield, you must strap it to your arm. This does not logically require that in order to strengthen your use of the shield with your other arm, you must strap it to that arm, too.
Can I throw a shield two handed if I have Ranging Hurler?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quote the rule that backs up your ridiculous claim.
Which is using a Heavy Shield...
I don't see any reason for you to take a hostile tone. I haven't insulted you and I have indeed attempted to outline my logical progression. Saying 'ridiculous' and demanding for a specific sentence in the rules, when we have already agreed that one doesn't exist is not very useful.
You seem to agree that wielding a shield is not the same as wielding other weapons. i.e. it has to be donned first, while other weapons only need to be drawn. To me this has obvious connections with wielding and how you can wield it. To you it does not. Fair enough.
I haven't taken a hostile tone and i'm sorry if you took it that way.
You made a ridiculous claim.
Your claiming that it functions different than other one handed weapons in use.
You claim that a one handed weapon [the heavy shield] isn't held in one hand. Which is false and has no backing in the rules.
I'm demanding citation of the rules that backs up what you say.
You can't provide that because it doesn't exist.
How is that not ridiculous?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm.
Correct.
In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it.
Non Sequitur.
Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.
The conclusion "you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon" does not follow from "you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one-hand wield a regular one-handed weapon". You one-hand wield a shield differently than most one-handed weapons, true. There is no basis for concluding, based on the rules (as opposed to your opinion about how shields work in the real world), that this means you can't two-hand wield them.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon'
Correct.
and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm.
Non Sequitur.
I'll admit that is is possible to argue that you can strap a shield to your arm and still somehow use two hands to bash with it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me or in line with the way the rules for bashing are written.
I can't see anywhere in the rules for shield bashing that would preclude it. Your opinion about whether it is reasonable would make a perfectly fine house rule, but that's not what we're discussing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm.Correct.
In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it.Non Sequitur.
Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.The conclusion "you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon" does not follow from "you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one-hand wield a regular one-handed weapon". You one-hand wield a shield differently than most one-handed weapons, true. There is no basis for concluding, based on the rules (as opposed to your opinion about how shields work in the real world), that this means you can't two-hand wield them.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon'Correct.
and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm.Non Sequitur.
I'll admit that is is possible to argue that you can strap a shield to your arm and still somehow use two hands to bash with it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me or in line with the way the rules for bashing are written.I can't see anywhere in the rules for shield bashing that would preclude it. Your opinion about whether it is reasonable would make a perfectly fine house rule, but that's not what we're discussing.
+1
What he said.
There also is no where in any rulebook that states you can't use two-weapon fighting with a longspear and armor spikes.
But you know what, you can't two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes. Because it is in the FAQ.
You know what you couldn't do before the FAQ? Two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes.
You know where it said you couldn't? No where. Everyone that read the rules and came to the conclusion that you could, including myself, were wrong.
Everyone that applied the logic that it was two powerful by gaining a average 1x strength for all attacks was correct. Even though it was CLEARLY contrary to RAW.
RAI and unexpected logic have been shown to trump RAW on enough occasions that very few rules interpretations can be considered outright ridiculous.
I'd love to see a video of someone actually trying to do this.
There also is no where in any rulebook that states you can't use two-weapon fighting with a longspear and armor spikes.
But you know what, you can't two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes. Because it is in the FAQ.
You know what you couldn't do before the FAQ? Two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes.
You know where it said you couldn't? No where. Everyone that read the rules and came to the conclusion that you could, including myself, were wrong.
Everyone that applied the logic that it was two powerful by gaining a average 1x strength for all attacks was correct. Even though it was CLEARLY contrary to RAW.
RAI and unexpected logic have been shown to trump RAW on enough occasions that very few rules interpretations can be considered outright ridiculous.
The FAQ is part of the rules, so being in the FAQ makes it effectively in a rulebook.
A lot of people who read the rules did in fact come to the conclusion that one could not two-weapon fight with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. I remember the thread was an argument between those folks and those who felt the rules said you could.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There also is no where in any rulebook that states you can't use two-weapon fighting with a longspear and armor spikes.
But you know what, you can't two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes. Because it is in the FAQ.
You know what you couldn't do before the FAQ? Two-weapon fight with a longspear and armor spikes.
You know where it said you couldn't? No where. Everyone that read the rules and came to the conclusion that you could, including myself, were wrong.
Everyone that applied the logic that it was two powerful by gaining a average 1x strength for all attacks was correct. Even though it was CLEARLY contrary to RAW.
RAI and unexpected logic have been shown to trump RAW on enough occasions that very few rules interpretations can be considered outright ridiculous.
So what?
A few months from now there might be an FAQ that says you can Two-Weapon Fight with two Longspears. But until that happens you can't.
And until that FAQ happens you can use a Heavy Shield with two hands to gain 1.5 STR.
So unless you have more than opinions on how "it should work" or can provide a link to a not yet released FAQ about Heavy Shields, we all can use Heavy Shields in two hands to get 1.5 STR.
The "So What" part is "RAI and unexpected logic have been shown to trump RAW on enough occasions that very few rules interpretations can be considered outright ridiculous."
Put more bluntly: Stop being so rude and learn how to play nice with others.
Opinions of the RAI are the point of this forum. It is not just a live glossary for the rules system. It is not the "Rules Quotes" forum. It is the "Rules Questions" forum. People discuss the rules all day long. As such, they come to different conclusions. You don't have to agree with one's outcome to stop calling them ridiculous.
Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm.Correct.
In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it.Non Sequitur.
Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.The conclusion "you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon" does not follow from "you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one-hand wield a regular one-handed weapon". You one-hand wield a shield differently than most one-handed weapons, true. There is no basis for concluding, based on the rules (as opposed to your opinion about how shields work in the real world), that this means you can't two-hand wield them.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon'Correct.
and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm.Non Sequitur.
I'll admit that is is possible to argue that you can strap a shield to your arm and still somehow use two hands to bash with it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me or in line with the way the rules for bashing are written.I can't see anywhere in the rules for shield bashing that would preclude it. Your opinion about whether it is reasonable would make a perfectly fine house rule, but that's not what we're discussing.
That is a fairly well presented argument. Note that my use of the term 'reasonable' wasn't trying to imply reasoning from the real world or anything like that, but rather reasoning from the rules and how they would apply. In many cases, you have to look at more than one rule and reason out how they would interact, the rule book doesn't necessarily spell out every possible situation.
First off, the shield description says things like 'used this way' and 'treat as.' That makes it clear to me that this thing is not like other things. There are indeed differences. The fact that it is on the weapons table in a specific category isn't definitive since it is those phrases that get it there.
The ability to use a one-handed weapon with two hands comes from this paragraph:
"One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Since we have agreed that the very first sentence of the paragraph doesn't apply to a shield, I don't see how you can just apply the rest of the paragraph to a shield without consideration.
My contention is that the very specific circumstances on how to wield a shield to make it count as a one-handed melee weapon automatically preclude wielding it in any other fashion. If you aren't satisfying the fundamental conditions that a shield bash requires, then you aren't doing a shield bash and your shield is now being used in a totally different manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "So What" part is "RAI and unexpected logic have been shown to trump RAW on enough occasions that very few rules interpretations can be considered outright ridiculous."
Put more bluntly: Stop being so rude and learn how to play nice with others.
Opinions of the RAI are the point of this forum. It is not just a live glossary for the rules system. It is not the "Rules Quotes" forum. It is the "Rules Questions" forum. People discuss the rules all day long. As such, they come to different conclusions. You don't have to agree with one's outcome to stop calling them ridiculous.
Yes but when some people just claim their opinions to be rules that is an issue.
I've provided why i can use the Heavy Shield to gain 1.5 STR.
It's One Handed. Done.
You have yet to provide a rule that says otherwise.
"One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Since we have agreed that the very first sentence of the paragraph doesn't apply to a shield, I don't see how you can just apply the rest of the paragraph to a shield without consideration.
Are you referring to "A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand"? That certainly does apply to a shield. You can use a shield as your primary weapon or your only weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you referring to "A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand"? That certainly does apply to a shield. You can use a shield as your primary weapon or your only weapon."One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder's Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it's used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his Strength bonus if it's used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character's Strength bonus to damage rolls."
Since we have agreed that the very first sentence of the paragraph doesn't apply to a shield, I don't see how you can just apply the rest of the paragraph to a shield without consideration.
Well according to Dave Jestus,
"Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm. In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it. Basically, you can't two-hand wield a shield without it being an improvised weapon, because you can't one-hand wield a shield the way you one hand wield a regular one-handed weapon, even though a shield does indeed count as a one-handed weapon.
So I'm saying the using it in any manner than strapped to the arm means you aren't using it in such a way that it counts as a 'one-handed weapon' and using two hands is not possible with a weapon strapped to the arm."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are other weapons that are attached in certain ways to the user, this doesn't change how they are used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are other weapons that are attached in certain ways to the user, this doesn't change how they are used.
If you know what I mean...
Every other weapon that I am aware of that is wielded in a very particular manner, such as a boulder helm or a tail attachment is a light weapon, which doesn't apply to this discussion.
Clearly, and I think we can all agree on this, the heavy shield is a different beast than most things. How different and where the differences apply is really what we are discussing.
I would contend that if their were a hypothetical 'heavy boulder helm' that counted as one-handed weapon but was wielded by strapping it on your head, then you couldn't grab your head with one hand and 'two-hand' that weapon either.
Now there isn't such a thing, and it is indeed likely that one reason the boulder helm and others like it are classified as light weapons is because they want to prevent that specific occurrence. This does lend some weight to the idea that you can two-hand the shield, since it could have just been placed in the light weapon category. I don't believe that this holds much weight, since its categorization is a very old legacy.
The longspear faq applies because it highlights that not using a weapon in the intended manor is possible, but that it is now considered an improvised weapon.If there was a rule that stated or implied that a shield bash was an improvised weapon when used two-handed I'd agree with you. As far as I can determine, there is no such rule. You're making vague references to strapping a shield to both arms simultaneously but there's nothing in the rules that indicates such a necessity.
The FAQ is specific to reach weapons used as improvised weapons to threaten adjacent squares. It cannot be generalized to a completely different type of weapon used in a completely different manner for a completely different purpose.
There also is nothing in the rules that indicates it is not necessary.
In the words of an old developer, you're not an idiot. The rules were written to be interpreted sensibly.
If the rules are vague on the matter, twisting the RAW till you end up with a ridiculous conclusion that is requiring both hands to be strapped to the shield is probably the inappropriate interpretation. Especially since it has little to no evidence in either the rules themselves or history/fiction.
Somedays I really miss SKR.
Way to take something completely out of context. My entire point was that a strict reading of RAW is Ridiculous.
But I guess you clearly showed how difficult it is to have a civil debate around here.
Way to take something completely out of context. My entire point was that a strict reading of RAW is Ridiculous.
But I guess you clearly showed how difficult it is to have a civil debate around here.
Does your debate further enjoyment of the game meaningfully?
I dont think so. Debating about arbitrary restrictions rarely does. Its no wonder that everyone in the thread thinks otherwise.
Using any weapon in a way that it was not designed makes it an improvised weapon. This could be halfswording, pommel striking or hitting a foe with the butt of your spear.
What constitutes improvised weapon use is pretty far in the territory of RAW can suck it and GM discretion.
You kids have fun arguing over something trivial. You're better off just FAQing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using any weapon in a way that it was not designed makes it an improvised weapon. This could be halfswording, pommel striking or hitting a foe with the butt of your spear.
What constitutes improvised weapon use is pretty far in the territory of RAW can suck it and GM discretion.
You kids have fun arguing over something trivial. You're better off just FAQing.
Sure, but shields are listed in the weapons table; they're not improvised weapons. No rule that anyone has identified restricts that usage to one-handed use.
Longspears are on the weapons table too. And yet, they still sometimes count as improvised weapons.
Way to take something completely out of context. My entire point was that a strict reading of RAW is Ridiculous.
But I guess you clearly showed how difficult it is to have a civil debate around here.
Does your debate further enjoyment of the game meaningfully?
I dont think so. Debating about arbitrary restrictions rarely does. Its no wonder that everyone in the thread thinks otherwise.
I am not even sure you know what I was debating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Longspears are on the weapons table too. And yet, they still sometimes count as improvised weapons.
When you use them in a way specifically in contradiction of their normal use. Normally they're reach weapons, which according to the rules do not let you attack adjacent squares. Using it as an improvised weapon to attack adjacent squares gets around that rule.
We're not talking about using a shield for anything other than its normal use as a weapon. We're not even talking about using it without an arm strapped to it -- it's been stipulated that one has to have a shield strapped to the arm in order to shield bash with it.
I didn't say you couldn't. I stated from the beginning that I don't have an opinion either way as of yet.
My only point was that there are two ways to look at it. A lot of what is obvious and only one way to some people is exactly opposite to others.
I do not think it is fair to attack people's position as ridiculous when the rules continuously fail to follow a single logical process.
Sometimes a rule breaks RAW for balance. (Two Weapon Fighting and Two Handed Weapons).
Sometimes it follows one part of RAW and ignores another to make possible. (Hide in Plain Sight-Shadow Dancer version and Low Light Vision).
Other times, the rules just completely change. (1 weapon flurry as well as 10' diagonal with reach weapons).
And yet other times a rule changes because it is way to "wrong" (Brass Knuckles) but than the same mechanic gets added to another class/archetype (Brawler & especially Shield Champion).
Per RAW, it is strapped to the arm.
You have to hold a longsword by the handle to use it two handed, right?
You can't just grab it anywhere you like.
If the above is 100%, per RAW, wouldn't the other arm also need to be strapped to the shield?
I don't think that most of the shields that you mention as not being strapped are going to hold up to very many blows from a Great Axe.
I don't have any position on the 'legality' of using two hands. But to question it either way is not outside the realm of logical.
So you would not allow a Greatsword to be wielded with one Hand at the hilt and the other at the ricasso?
Many combat styles only work by grabbing the weapon anywhere you like. I'd dare say that this is one of the tings that makes an experienced fighter's BAB rise: He learns to wield the weapon in more ways than just Swinging with the Hands at the hilt.
So you don't actually have a point, and you have no actual reason on why the shield shouldn't follow the rules other than...
Because...
Nice.
The position is being attacked as ridiculous because it is just that.
It has no rules supporting it.
It is flying in the face of the rules that are in place.
It requires adding stuff that isn't there in the first place.
It purposefully misuses an FAQ that isn't even related to it.
In short make a good argument and it can be discussed. As it is now the position doesn't merit recognition.
This isn't a discussion of two equally valid theories:
This is a discussion on if the earth is flat or not and you are asking for people to accept information that is not valid, is false, and is non-existent, in order to try and even start having the discussion.
Ok, we are in at least partial agreement, and perhaps I see where we are diverging.Most one-handed weapons are indeed held in one hand. A shield is not. A shield is strapped to an arm. In order to hold it in one hand, and then hold it in a second hand to get a two-handed weapon bonus, you would first have to get to the one hand i.e. unstrapping it.
And that is where your error lies. You do NOT have to unstrap the shield. By having it strapped to your arm it is being used as a one-handed weapon. You just have to add the second Hand to any sensible part of the weapon and now you are wielding it two-handed.
So you don't actually have a point, and you have no actual reason on why the shield shouldn't follow the rules other than...
Because...
Nice.
The position is being attacked as ridiculous because it is just that.
It has no rules supporting it.
It is flying in the face of the rules that are in place.
It requires adding stuff that isn't there in the first place.
It purposefully misuses an FAQ that isn't even related to it.
In short make a good argument and it can be discussed. As it is now the position doesn't merit recognition.
This isn't a discussion of two equally valid theories:
This is a discussion on if the earth is flat or not and you are asking for people to accept information that is not valid, is false, and is non-existent, in order to try and even start having the discussion.
Yep.
That about sums up this thread. Which should have been finished pages ago after someone looked at the chart and saw: Heavy Shield listed as a One Handed Weapon. LOL.
Also in order for the "strap" theory to have even a ghost of a chance (which it does not) you would have to be able to apply it to the klar and scizore...
...because they are both specifically and explicitly strapped to the arm.
That is the exact same situation as the shield.
But you failed to make the argument that you cannot two hand a klar or a Scizore.
Ergo your argument is fatally flawed from the ground up yet again.
There is no way this theory has anything of a leg to stand on.
I quote:
The scizore is a hardened tube that fits your forearm, ending in a semicircular blade used for devastating bladed punch attacks.
The traditional form of this tribal weapon is a short blade bound to the skull of a large horned lizard but but a skill smith can craft one entirely out of metal.
If you cannot make an argument on these two items your entire argument for the heavy shield is dead on arrival.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the whole "strapped to the arm, but not held in hand" thing, I advise you to reread the heavy steel shield description:
You strap a heavy steel shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy steel shield is so heavy that you can’t use your shield hand for anything else. Whether wooden or steel, a heavy shield offers the same basic protection and attack benefits, though the two versions respond differently to some spells and effects (such as rusting grasp). A druid can use a heavy wooden shield, but not a heavy steel shield.