|
I have a feeling this is going to be another thing that falls into the purview of "unwritten rules" and "invisible hands."
If so it will be another rule that I ignore on principal.
I'm sorry - but if your conclusion is 'rules are stupid and I do what I want' - it's not something you should contribute to the rules forum.
I'm assuming that you're referring to the 'no TWF with greatsword/armor spikes' FAQ. You probably won't believe me, but for any but fighters (who specialize too much in a single weapon) - TWF with a two-handed weapon & armor spikes actually is OP. It is - rather obviously - the most potent TWF style, (an extra .5x strength damage & better PA) and TWF already has the highest DPR in the game past the first few levels.
Wrong.
The numbers have been proven time, and time again.
|
Wrong.The numbers have been proven time, and time again.
*heavy sigh* - I can prove it to you with the maths if you require. I've already proven TWF to have higher DPR recently - and two-handed/armor spikes is obviously superior to that. (outside of the aforementioned fighter)
Does TWF have feat costs & disadvantages? Yes. But it's still top for DPR. And the two-handed/armor spikes remove most of the disadvantages. (sans feats)
DPR Calculations cannot account for enemies moving more than 5ft or flying or other things that remove your full attack. Unless your fights all are done with combatants tied off with 10ft of rope to each other.
|
|
DPR Calculations cannot account for enemies moving more than 5ft or flying or other things that remove your full attack. Unless your fights all are done with combatants tied off with 10ft of rope to each other.
Hence 'feat costs & disadvantages' - that's probably the primary disadvtage. But if one of your weapons for TWF is a two-handed weapon, you lose that particular disadvantage entirely anyway. (And that's excluding any potential access to pounce.)
|
|
I am not going to walk down the path of Armor Spikes, and it's FAQ here.
It's not relevant.
That is really the point here.
Two weapon fighting, off-hands, the Armor Spikes FAQ...
All not relevant.
This, weird idea that using more than one hand for attacks, somehow completely negates one's ability to gain a shield bonus, in any fashion, is not covered.
Following this, unsupported logic, would require things like, a free hand to benefit from the Shield spell.
Where does idea come from?
Where does idea come from?
From the fact that shields are wielded by hands.
1. Both light and heavy shields list that you cannot use your offhand for attacking when you wield a shield.
2. You need to be wielding it in order to get AC from it.
So if you attack with your offhand (either by 2 weapon fighting or using a 2 handed weapon), common sense says that you don't gain a bonus to AC from your shield since you can't be wielding it.
You will come back and say "But, quickdraw shield".
If you can attack with a two hander and then pull out a shield (and wield it), why can't you attack with a 2 hander and then pull out an offhand weapon with quickdraw and attack with it? The number of actions are the same. You have to ignore the FAQ to do that with two weapons, but you would also have to ignore the "can't wield and attack in the same round" stated by light and heavy shield.
Which is why a FAQ is needed. Same number of actions, same number of hands, but since only attacks are FAQ'd, shields are somehow fair game for abuse.
|
|
That's not "common sense".
Also, there is no "abuse".
Hell, you could two weapon fight with unarmed strikes, and still wield a shield, and gain a bonus to AC.
Attacking, and wielding, are separate things.
As I pointed out, you can easily attack with a Longspear, then draw a dagger, wield it, and threaten with it.
Your example, involves an extra attack.
Nobody is talking about extra attacks.
Gaining a shield bonus to AC, is not equal to an extra attack.
How is that comparable?
You don't even need a Quickdraw Shield. You can do it with a Light, or Heavy Shield, or even a Klar.
Attack with a two-handed weapon, as a Standard Action, quickdraw a Light Shield, Heavy Shield, or Klar, then Don it as a Move Action.
You now have a shield, your weapon is unwielded. You're threatening with shield bashes if your GM is generous. And next turn you have only shield bashes. And any bash means bye-bye AC and the whole point of having the blasted thing.
|
|
You now have a shield, your weapon is unwielded. You're threatening with shield bashes if your GM is generous. And next turn you have only shield bashes. And any bash means bye-bye AC and the whole point of having the blasted thing.You don't even need a Quickdraw Shield. You can do it with a Light, or Heavy Shield, or even a Klar.
Attack with a two-handed weapon, as a Standard Action, quickdraw a Light Shield, Heavy Shield, or Klar, then Don it as a Move Action.
If your DM is generous? You mean, not a dick with houserules, or a misunderstanding of how weapons work.
A shield is a weapon. Unless specified, weapons threaten.
My example could also use an One-handed weapon, wielded in two hands.
It does not matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While thematically all turns are happening at the same time, pretty much everyone will tell you that from a game mechanics standpoint that just doesn't work. If you kill someone with your last attack in your turn, they don't still get half of a turn if they were supposed to go later that same round. Movement and positioning becomes a whole giant mess as well. Parts of the game were written with the thought that turns occur simultaneously, but most of the game doesn't work like that, which is why we get into problems like this.
that's because initiative determines who EFFECTIVELY goes first (as opposed to actually), with higher initiative, you;re more likely to kill your target before he can react to you.
your attack roll isn't necessarily a single attack, and if you effort to kill him during that turn.
it's all abstracted simultaneous.
You now have a shield, your weapon is unwielded. You're threatening with shield bashes if your GM is generous. And next turn you have only shield bashes. And any bash means bye-bye AC and the whole point of having the blasted thing.You don't even need a Quickdraw Shield. You can do it with a Light, or Heavy Shield, or even a Klar.
Attack with a two-handed weapon, as a Standard Action, quickdraw a Light Shield, Heavy Shield, or Klar, then Don it as a Move Action.
If your DM is generous? You mean, not a dick with houserules, or a misunderstanding of how weapons work.
A shield is a weapon. Unless specified, weapons threaten.
My example could also use an One-handed weapon, wielded in two hands.
It does not matter.
In that case ... why bother with one two-handed strike with the one-hander? If your goal is to have the shield, then use the shield. I'd rather take two one-handed swings on a full attack or one swing and a move, over one swing and raising a shield.
Everyone loves talking about action economy ... what I'm trying to point out is another economic idea, opportunity cost. When you're doing all this shield juggling, what are you giving up to do it?
|
|
You now have a shield, your weapon is unwielded. You're threatening with shield bashes if your GM is generous. And next turn you have only shield bashes. And any bash means bye-bye AC and the whole point of having the blasted thing.You don't even need a Quickdraw Shield. You can do it with a Light, or Heavy Shield, or even a Klar.
Attack with a two-handed weapon, as a Standard Action, quickdraw a Light Shield, Heavy Shield, or Klar, then Don it as a Move Action.
If your DM is generous? You mean, not a dick with houserules, or a misunderstanding of how weapons work.
A shield is a weapon. Unless specified, weapons threaten.
My example could also use an One-handed weapon, wielded in two hands.
It does not matter.
In that case ... why bother with one two-handed strike with the one-hander? If your goal is to have the shield, then use the shield. I'd rather take two one-handed swings on a full attack or one swing and a move, over one swing and raising a shield.
Everyone loves talking about action economy ... what I'm trying to point out is another economic idea, opportunity cost. When you're doing all this shield juggling, what are you giving up to do it?
Maybe you don't have a BAB of +6 or higher, want to use Vital Strike, or Sunder, or some other reason.
Does it matter?
This weird unfounded bullcrap about shield bonuses somehow linked to metaphysical hands, off-hands, and other unwritten rules nonsense, is just needless.
How does this require a FAQ?
Who the hell frequently asks this?
Where does idea come from?From the fact that shields are wielded by hands.
1. Both light and heavy shields list that you cannot use your offhand for attacking when you wield a shield.
2. You need to be wielding it in order to get AC from it.So if you attack with your offhand (either by 2 weapon fighting or using a 2 handed weapon), common sense says that you don't gain a bonus to AC from your shield since you can't be wielding it.
You will come back and say "But, quickdraw shield".
If you can attack with a two hander and then pull out a shield (and wield it), why can't you attack with a 2 hander and then pull out an offhand weapon with quickdraw and attack with it? The number of actions are the same. You have to ignore the FAQ to do that with two weapons, but you would also have to ignore the "can't wield and attack in the same round" stated by light and heavy shield.
Which is why a FAQ is needed. Same number of actions, same number of hands, but since only attacks are FAQ'd, shields are somehow fair game for abuse.
No, it's not. This is getting ridiculously stupid. The rule of "Can't use same limbs repeatedly" only applies to using Natural Weapons in conjunction with Iterative Attacks; the limbs used to wield a Natural Weapon cannot also be used to perform Iterative Attacks. Since we're comparing Manufactured Weapons to Manufactured Weapons, the rule regarding Natural Weapons need not apply.
For those silly goons who think a hand is required; it's not.
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
This column tells how long it takes a character to put the armor on. (One minute is 10 rounds.) Readying (strapping on) a shield is only a move action.
To receive the benefits of a manufactured shield, it must be donned (which is the proper term). In order to don a shield, you must spend a move action. That move action consists of strapping the shield to your forearm (or what constitutes a forearm). From a RAW perspective, the gripping with your hand part becomes flavor text, since it is not mentioned as being a requirement needed to fulfill to don a shield.
If a hand is required, then creatures who use Tentacles to don their shields would not be applicable recipients of shields either, and we all know that's a bunch of hooey.
Also, you mentioned "can't wield and attack in the same round", and yet the PRD entry that I cited does not make that claim. So, chances are it's no in-round status like you say it is, and it sounds more like you're making stuff up because you dislike the fact that people are "cheesing" two-handing weapons along with using shields.
But Wizards making Wish Sno-Cone Factories is 100% legal and okay and not a horrible way to play the game at all. /sarcasm
You now have a shield, your weapon is unwielded. You're threatening with shield bashes if your GM is generous. And next turn you have only shield bashes. And any bash means bye-bye AC and the whole point of having the blasted thing.You don't even need a Quickdraw Shield. You can do it with a Light, or Heavy Shield, or even a Klar.
Attack with a two-handed weapon, as a Standard Action, quickdraw a Light Shield, Heavy Shield, or Klar, then Don it as a Move Action.
If your DM is generous? You mean, not a dick with houserules, or a misunderstanding of how weapons work.
A shield is a weapon. Unless specified, weapons threaten.
My example could also use an One-handed weapon, wielded in two hands.
It does not matter.
In that case ... why bother with one two-handed strike with the one-hander? If your goal is to have the shield, then use the shield. I'd rather take two one-handed swings on a full attack or one swing and a move, over one swing and raising a shield.
Everyone loves talking about action economy ... what I'm trying to point out is another economic idea, opportunity cost. When you're doing all this shield juggling, what are you giving up to do it?
Maybe you don't have a BAB of +6 or higher, want to use Vital Strike, or Sunder, or some other reason.
Does it matter?
This weird unfounded bullcrap about shield bonuses somehow linked to metaphysical hands, off-hands, and other unwritten rules nonsense, is just needless.
How does this require a FAQ?
Who the hell frequently asks this?
I personally don't, but that's more because I've been leaning towards just using two-handed weapons and leaving shields for the party cleric. And my point is that if someone is going through so many convoluted turns, to find some niche to apply the idea, even while it's being allowed ... is it really an idea worth doing?
Maybe the right solution is to just let nature take its course. You're basically going through great lengths to try and do everything, and ultimately you're ending up going through several pages of legalese and at the end ... you're a sword and board combatant. So you may as well just hold the shield all the time, forget using the shield hand to wield something, and go explore that aspect of fighting.
|
|
These are not even "convoluted" tactics.
There is no "legalese" to sift through.
It is a simple attack, and then defense.
You might as well accuse fighting defensively with a two-handed weapon "cheesy".
If there is some sort of square blocks of fighting styles, that must be adhered to, then I can only say that I am sorry for you.
Some of use "tactics", that are completely easy, and legal.
This right up there with people asking if non-Monks can kick.
These are not even "convoluted" tactics.
There is no "legalese" to sift through.
It is a simple attack, and then defense.
You might as well accuse fighting defensively with a two-handed weapon "cheesy".
If there is some sort of square blocks of fighting styles, that must be adhered to, then I can only say that I am sorry for you.
Some of use "tactics", that are completely easy, and legal.
This right up there with people asking if non-Monks can kick.
'Legal' is debatable, as the thread is apparently evolving. 'Easy' I'm going to dispute. 'Useful' I can't agree on.
As far as 'square blocks of fighting styles', that's one of the consequences of things. Trying to game the system to eke out shield wielding while using a two-handed weapon seems like a waste of in-game actions that could be better used doing more useful things, which is the point of what I was saying all along.
In all the examples I used, the Shield was not being used to attack.
But the shield arm is.
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
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.
Heavy Shield = no spell casting (that requires a free hand) if you are wielding a weapon and the shield. If you can't even spell cast with that hand, why is using it for weapon attacks (specifically called out as not being ok) acceptable?
I'm not accusing someone of being cheesy when they attack with two hands and then claim that they retain the AC of their shield. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to work that way. If you can't even use your shield arm FOR ANYTHING ELSE when using a heavy shield, how is attacking with it OK?
Since it appears that there are two sides to this, that is why I think a FAQ is required. If it was as cut and dry as we both think (though we both think different things) then it wouldn't be required. But since it doesn't appear to be that simple a little clarification from the devs would be nice.
EDIT: I hope I'm not coming across as "a hole-ish", that is not my intention. I value everyone's input on these forums (BBT's in particular).
BBT me and you were both certain that nothing could possible stop you from attacking with a boot blade after swinging your greatsword. We ended up with the wrong answer per the rules team because of metaphysical hands. That's exactly how this could end up being ruled. Now I would agree that if you standard attack/move draw shield then you should have the A/c Bonus off of your turn. If you wanted to full attack and do it with a quick draw shield that's where it could get odd.
BBT me and you were both certain that nothing could possible stop you from attacking with a boot blade after swinging your greatsword. We ended up with the wrong answer per the rules team because of metaphysical hands. That's exactly how this could end up being ruled. Now I would agree that if you standard attack/move draw shield then you should have the A/c Bonus off of your turn. If you wanted to full attack and do it with a quick draw shield that's where it could get odd.
I think that's still allowable. My main concern is whether it's a good idea or not. Especially when your next turn comes and you're armed with your light shield and nothing else. Basically, what are you doing after you've done your greatsword hack and shield don.
The OP's plan is to use (if i understand correctly) a Quick draw or force shield that can be activated/drawn at the end of the attacks and then put away/turned off at the start of the next turn.
In all the examples I used, the Shield was not being used to attack.But the shield arm is.
You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.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.Heavy Shield = no spell casting (that requires a free hand) if you are wielding a weapon and the shield. If you can't even spell cast with that hand, why is using it for weapon attacks (specifically called out as not being ok) acceptable?
I'm not accusing someone of being cheesy when they attack with two hands and then claim that they retain the AC of their shield. I'm saying that it doesn't appear to work that way. If you can't even use your shield arm FOR ANYTHING ELSE when using a heavy shield, how is attacking with it OK?
Since it appears that there are two sides to this, that is why I think a FAQ is required. If it was as cut and dry as we both think (though we both think different things) then it wouldn't be required. But since it doesn't appear to be that simple a little clarification from the devs would be nice.
EDIT: I hope I'm not coming across as "a hole-ish", that is not my intention. I value everyone's input on these forums (BBT's in particular).
You are aware that those rules only apply while the item is equipped, or more accurately, donned, right? By this logic, if I took my suit of Full Plate off, and then proceeded to sleep for 8 hours, I'd be Fatigued/Exhausted because apparently the laws of the items apply even outside of using them, and (hopefully) we all know that's a bunch of bullsquirt.
You are also aware that the GM only said there was a problem when natural weapons were thrown into the mix, right? The GMs RAI, as best as I can follow it, is that the ruling for using Manufactured Weapons, whether they be Shields or not, cannot be done in conjunction with Natural Weapons that occupy the same limbs. If a Shield is a Manufactured Weapon (most people as well as the weapons table would say it is), you cannot use them in conjunction with making Claw Attacks, even if you aren't making attacks with it.
Is it right that the GM did that? That's what's debatable, since a Shield is more than just a Manufactured Weapon, people think it should be exempt from being a Manufactured Weapon because it's also a piece of armor. It can be the case...But I agree with the GM's ruling, though not because of the "in-round" hijinks that people are claiming it is (and yet is only present in a specific shield's entry), but because of the rules of Natural Weapons.
It all comes down to a flaw in the game logic, in my opinion. The game as a whole needs to decide when to check for legality of options.
Sometimes, a thing must be happening for the player's entire turn for there to be a benefit because the game is envisioned as everything happening simultaneously. This is evidenced by the rules surrounding attacking while wearing a buckler on the same arm. As well known, the attacker loses all AC bonus for the rest of the round.
Yet, somehow at the same time, a character could swim 30' across a stream with that same buckler attached to the same arm. The arm was clearly in use way more than the previous example. Not using the arm might even have resulted in drowning. Yet somehow, this swimmer is able to keep the AC bonus of the buckler for the rest of the round.
In the first scenario, the fact that the character is currently wearing a buckler does not matter, but rather his use of his arm during is last turn. But in the second, it didn't matter that he used his arm so much more. It only mattered that the buckler was attached when he was trying to defend.
So now, by applying logic to both parts, we are shown that the logic cannot work. Either the defense bonuses of the items warn are based on the status of them being equipped, or based on the status of the use of the arm during the last turn. But then again, they are not. Only a few items care what you do during the turn, and even worse, only a few actions affect those few items. It is not all the defensive items worn on the arm. And it is not all actions involving the arm.
So again, we are left with a section of the rules that cannot follow a single set of rules-logic. Two different sets of logic must be followed. It is the A la carte application of this logic that causes problems for people and the reason that some have chosen to "ignore" rules such as the metaphysical hands issue.
You are aware that those rules only apply while the item is equipped, or more accurately, donned, right? By this logic, if I took my suit of Full Plate off, and then proceeded to sleep for 8 hours, I'd be Fatigued/Exhausted because apparently the laws of the items apply even outside of using them, and (hopefully) we all know that's a bunch of bullsquirt.
You are also aware that the GM only said there was a problem when natural weapons were...
I may have lost you somewhere. I was saying that the only way to apply the AC bonus of shield is to have it donned (in use, used, wielded, applied, equipped, etc). As you pointed out, having it donned (etc.) is what makes the use of that hand (arm, offhand, metaphysical limb, etc.) unusable for attacks (or anything else in the case of a Heavy Shield) for that round.
My view was that if you get the AC, you have it donned, you can't use that hand to attack. Period. And following that same line, if you attack with that hand first, you are still "using it up" for that round so even if you Quick Draw a Quickdraw shield, you still wouldn't have the AC applied that round (since your "hands" were used up).
I see now that regardless of debate, this issue has two sides, and thus table variance until a FAQ or Dev reply is seen.
If you pick up a ring of protection and put it on, do you not have the protection for the rest of the round?
Is the game based on the action when it happens or the beginning of the next round?
If you pick up a ring of protection and put it on, do you not have the protection for the rest of the round?
Is the game based on the action when it happens or the beginning of the next round?
Barring a FAQ, I would say that for shields it is dependent on the round you use your hand for something other than guarding with the shield (as per the "Buckler rule" and the rule for Shield Bashes). They both state that you lose the AC bonus for the whole round if you use the shield (or shield hand in the case of the Buckler) to attack.
Other similarly worded feats/abilities are Power Attack (active the whole round once you use it), Combat Expertise (whole round), Charge (minus to AC for the whole round after charging), etc.
If "using/donning/wielding/equipping" a Heavy Shield makes it so you can't use your shield hand for anything, it wouldn't be a huge leap to think that if you used your hand for something else, you don't get the AC of the shield for the rest of the round. Maybe it is a huge leap, at this point I don't think it really matters. This doesn't effect my table so I don't know why I keep arguing :)
It works exactly how it says it does. Just as long as you don't do anything with the hand that activates it in the round that you active it.
Oh wait, it doesn't say that does it?
So, how does a Shield Cloak work?
Move action to turn on, it looks like. Drop as free. So you're using up your move action to use its benefits. I'd say it's a shield that takes up your shoulders slot and doesn't look like a shield until you block something with it. No as-written quickdraw option, although free to drop.
Just to ask so we can keep things going in the right way. Is anyone of the opinion that you cannot use a shield after a standard action attack with 2HW?
Basicly Attack(standard) Draw Shield (Move) end turn.
You are aware that those rules only apply while the item is equipped, or more accurately, donned, right? By this logic, if I took my suit of Full Plate off, and then proceeded to sleep for 8 hours, I'd be Fatigued/Exhausted because apparently the laws of the items apply even outside of using them, and (hopefully) we all know that's a bunch of bullsquirt.
You are also aware that the GM only said there was a problem when natural weapons were...
I may have lost you somewhere. I was saying that the only way to apply the AC bonus of shield is to have it donned (in use, used, wielded, applied, equipped, etc). As you pointed out, having it donned (etc.) is what makes the use of that hand (arm, offhand, metaphysical limb, etc.) unusable for attacks (or anything else in the case of a Heavy Shield) for that round.
My view was that if you get the AC, you have it donned, you can't use that hand to attack. Period. And following that same line, if you attack with that hand first, you are still "using it up" for that round so even if you Quick Draw a Quickdraw shield, you still wouldn't have the AC applied that round (since your "hands" were used up).
I see now that regardless of debate, this issue has two sides, and thus table variance until a FAQ or Dev reply is seen.
And those rules only apply while the item is donned. If the Shield is Donned, you receive the Shield Bonus as well as the drawbacks, if any, that the shield provides. A Heavy Shield says that you can't use that hand for anything else, whereas a Light Shield says that you can only use that hand for carrying other items.
Those rules only apply while the Shield is donned. If the Shield is not donned (in this case, at instances where the player is using a two-handed weapon, or making use of Natural Weapons), those rules aren't applied to the player in question, and aren't applied for as long as the character isn't donning the shield.
There is no rule that says anything similar to "your hands are used up" in relation to Manufactured Weapons used in conjunction with Manufactured Weapons (or even Shields, which are also Manufactured Weapons); this rule is only mentioned when you are attempting to use Natural Weapons in conjunction with Manufactured Weapons. That is, if you make a Claw attack, you can't use that limb (in this case, hand) for the Claw attack as well as using a Manufactured Weapon.
If a shield was to affect the entire round, like the Buckler or the Power Attack feat does, it would have to cite that it does; we all know that if such language wasn't present in either of those feats, I could Power Attack for some attacks, and not for other. I could also not suffer the penalties for making attacks while using Bucklers for Attacks of Opportunity, but are still applicable for attacks during my turn.
Because of the lack of language, your argument becomes a flawed extrapolation that has no basis to be applicable to the subjects in question.
|
I was saying that the only way to apply the AC bonus of shield is to have it donned (in use, used, wielded, applied, equipped, etc). As you pointed out, having it donned (etc.) is what makes the use of that hand (arm, offhand, metaphysical limb, etc.) unusable for attacks (or anything else in the case of a Heavy Shield) for that round.
No part of the rules, even for the buckler, says that you cannot use the buckler arm to make an attack. It's the other way round: if you use the buckler arm to make an attack, then you lose the AC bonus it was giving you up til the point you made that attack. Also, having a light or heavy shield donned is what prevents you from using a different weapon in that hand. But this restriction does not apply before you don it! If I were to use a 2HW as a standard action, then use my move action to don a heavy shield, I would get its bonus to my AC as soon as I don it, and the fact that I used that hand to make an attack before I donned it would not prevent me from getting that AC bonus. No rule, for buckler or shield, says or means that I would not get that AC.
My view was that if you get the AC, you have it donned, you can't use that hand to attack. Period. And following that same line, if you attack with that hand first, you are still "using it up" for that round so even if you Quick Draw a Quickdraw shield, you still wouldn't have the AC applied that round (since your "hands" were used up).
Even the absurd TWF FAQ says no such thing. That FAQ concerns only the extra attack(s) from TWF, and has no effect on using the same hand for other attacks that are not extra attacks from TWF. It certainly has nothing to do with shields or their AC.
Donning a shield makes that hand full. That's why you can't use a different weapon in it. But that restriction does not go back in spacetime to prevent you from holding stuff in the same hand which will, at some point in the future, be holding a shield.