I know about shield wall. I am also thinking about having a single character use two shields while a player behinds them dual wield reach weapons maybe. (dont know if thats actually a thing)
I have actually received feedback from people on how to go about introducing this in a balanced manner.
There is no need to be so dismissive Alex. If you feel as if your time is wasted here, you are welcome to stop participating. Im gathering information as to whether most people think this might work, so i can decide on whether or not i want to introduce this.
I am glad to have feedback of different opinions, but i personally prefer it not to be an attack on myself. Tell me why it wont work, tell me why it will.
DMBlake told me why it wont work after attacking me.
DMBlake, 8 attacks in 6 seconds from 8 directions, and you reckon you can move a single shield to block all those attacks? I know by the mechanics you can, but would it not be easier to block 4 attacks in 6 seconds with each arm if you receive training to do so?
Now lets also think about someone two handing a great sword at you, i personally dont rate my chances of blocking that with one arm and a single buckler, however using two arms to attempt to block the blow seems like the smart thing to do yes?
Wasn't being dismissive or attacking you, I was reaffirming your power as GM to do what you want.
I won't claim to agree with you about using two shields though, because I have actually TRIED it.
I used to fight in a group (SCA, society for creative anachronism) and had many many chances to try various types of shields vs various types of weapons.
Common consensus was that two shields just meant you didn't have something to attack back with, was cludgy, and not very effective.
If you want to dismiss THAT, then you are ignoring your own original post. You asked if two shields would 'stack in real life'. My experience (in real life) has been no.
So again, if you want to make it that way in your game, you have every right to do so, but I personally (from experience) would say it doesn't work that way.
Based on being hit in the head a few times. While using two shields.
You know your arm isnt an immovable rod right? The guy with that greatsword that you try block with on shield pushes your arm back. And then contacts your second shield, 2 shields blocking a single attack. using 2 smaller shields to emulate a larger shield with both arms in it.
DMBlake told me why it wont work after attacking me.
After attacking you?
I didn't attack anybody.
YOU are the one who posted about using THREE shields to get three simultaneous shield bonuses as if you thought people would just accidentally hit those shields. Like they were some kind of attack-magnet to pull enemy weapons into the shields by some kind of force. They aren't. You're also the one who brought IRL into this, so I responded with minimal Pathfinder rules in my description of how shields work.
It wasn't an attack, it was a clarification. For your benefit.
You're pushing back pretty hard and feeling defensive for no cause, which tells me you're heavily invested in this idea, so go for it; do what you want because you want to. That's all you need.
DMBlake, 8 attacks in 6 seconds from 8 directions, and you reckon you can move a single shield to block all those attacks? I know by the mechanics you can, but would it not be easier to block 4 attacks in 6 seconds with each arm if you receive training to do so?
No, no I don't reckon I could do that at all. I don't even reckon Captain America could do that. OK, maybe he could. But probably nobody else. Certainly nobody real.
It would probably be a little easier to block 4 attacks with each arm, but I still have only one head, one pair of eyes that don't operate independently, and I still need to see all 8 attacks and put a shield in front of each one. Maybe I could plausibly move each of those shields a bit less if I have two of them, giving me a little more reaction time for each block, so it could conceivably help a bit.
That said, I would still only get one "Shield bonus" for each block because only one shield is making each block. Therefore each attacker only needs to beat one shield bonus to hit me.
Which goes back to my original answer, no matter how many shields you have, you only use one of them to defend at any given instant, so you only get the benefit of one of them at any instant.
In real life.
And in Pathfinder.
Sorry Alex, intent is hard to read on forums. I apologise.
I can link to people in SCA saying it was very effective as attack and defense in other forums.
Also, as an acedemic exercise some of my friends and I in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) had at one time decided to try out duel-shielding to see how effectively it could be done. I can tell you that while fighting in that style would definately need some perfection that it provided excellent cover from attacks while still leaving room for offense. Shields are heavy but they are used to punch with to not only block weapon blows but make hits. This is an excepted strategy with one shield so why not two? In short, it worked though was rather tiresome. I also don't have a >16 strength score, probably not even a single PC class level or live in a fantasy setting where magic is real. Thus the need to prove it's viability in the real word is moot as many others have also pointed out.
Here. About 10 posts down
Dm Blake, sorry, intent is hard to read on forums. I apologise.
Im also running on 2 hours of sleep in 48 hours. may be a bit touchy.
DM Blake, what do you think of two weapon defense with two shields?
When wielding a double weapon or two weapons (not including natural weapons or unarmed strikes), you gain a +1 shield bonus to your AC.
Would you let that stack?
Keeping in mind that combat in PF is an abstraction, and keeping in mind that attacking in combat doesn't just mean 1 attack (even though we only roll 1 attack roll) and instead means a series of jabs, feints, set-ups, etc., I think it is feasible that dual-wielding shields could work.
Even if only fighting one opponent, being able to position two shields and move them around so as to intercept as many of these pseudo-attacks as possible doesn't seem totally outside of the realm of realism.
And heck, I think it sounds down right cool to be honest. Seeing a character moving about, deflecting attacks left and right, lashing out with a shield (perhaps spiked or bladed on the rim?) would be a very evocative character concept.
Two Weapon Defense gives you a shield bonus when you have no shield bonus (because you're not using a shield).
Shield bonuses are not stackable (Dodge bonuses stack, shield bonuses do not). So by RAW, if you are using BOTH of your shields to make shield bash attacks (so that you're fighting with two shields, not defending with two shields, not even defending with one of them), then you could use this feat to get a shield bonus.
But if you use even one shield to provide a Shield bonus (this includes shield bashing with Improved Shield Bash) then this would not stack because you would have two Shield bonuses.
So RAW is quite clear on this.
But you asked if I would let it stack. My attitude about house rules is that I need a compelling reason to create a house rule. Each house rule I add makes the game more complex because all my players and I must remember more things, and it's harder for a player at home to plan his character development using his own books and/or the SRD when I have a book of my own new/altered rules that he doesn't have at his house. So, to get a house rule past me, you would need to convince me that the game is better with the rule, so much better that it's worth the extra hassle it causes.
This doesn't seem like such a rule. That said, if you wanted to burn a feat on +1 AC, I would suggest Dodge. If you wanted to burn another feat on +1 AC, I would probably allow it as a house rule.
Tormsskull, thats exactly the type of thing i was thinking. Mechanically and balance wise i would need to think a bit on the best option. Any ideas?
Two Weapon Defense gives you a shield bonus when you have no shield bonus (because you're not using a shield).
Shield bonuses are not stackable (Dodge bonuses stack, shield bonuses do not). So by RAW, if you are using BOTH of your shields to make shield bash attacks (so that you're fighting with two shields, not defending with two shields, not even defending with one of them), then you could use this feat to get a shield bonus.
But if you use even one shield to provide a Shield bonus (this includes shield bashing with Improved Shield Bash) then this would not stack because you would have two Shield bonuses.
Valid. It provides an alternative to ISB. not a great one to be honest.
You spoke about shield defense against hails of arrows earlier, would multiple shields help for that?
You spoke about shield defense against hails of arrows earlier, would multiple shields help for that?
They certainly helped in real life. Just ask those Romans...
In this case, note the Romans were not fighting in this formation. They were marching. I would have no problem using multiple shields (one person or multiple people) to create a Tortoise-like Cover against arrows, maybe even Total Cover, as long as they're doing it while moving, not while engaged in combat. Once the melee breaks out, those shields are back to being just an AC bonus and having more than one doesn't stack.
Compromise, i like compromise. Weilding 2 heavy or tower shields allows you to gain total cover from arrows but move at say half speed. sound good?
EDIT: maybe heavy grant partial and tower full?
Yeah, that doesn't seem unreasonable, although I might only give Cover for heavy shields.
Yeah, im happy with that being a benefit of double shields... application against spells? fighters get that feat that allows tower shields against some spells i think?