I know bonuses from the same source dont stack. IE shield bonus from one shield only. But ignoring that, would using two shields make you harder to hit in real life? If so would it be possible to reflect this in pathfinder?
I suppose one could use two weapon defense but that doesnt seem enough. I could see maybe the main hand shield AC plus half off hand shield AC. Each shield you add does less?
As low as shield bonuses are I don't think a second shield would provide a significantly high additional protection over shield + weapon to warrant an increased bonus.
Im just thinking say, two tower shields for lols. It should make you almost impossible to hit from the front at all.
At least when i think about it in the real world. Forming a tortoise with yourself basically
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having used a shield (and two of them also) in real life, I would argue a case of diminishing returns.
Two shields are not twice as good as one, they just get in the way of each other.
As a GM, I simply wouldn't allow them to stack at all, frankly.
If you really want a real life argument, then both shields would be useless if you're attacked from the back.
I always wondered why there were no facing rules in the game, to be honest...
I guess that's what flanking is for.
*shrugs*
But you are right, attacking from behind IS more effective, other systems reflect this, Pathfinder does not.
But what about that huge tower shield i have strapped to my back? Yes a third one
Im just thinking say, two tower shields for lols. It should make you almost impossible to hit from the front at all.
At least when i think about it in the real world. Forming a tortoise with yourself basically
Same would be true if you'd carry a box around you. But why would you? It's not like you could do anything except slowly walk around.
Having used a shield (and two of them also) in real life, I would argue a case of diminishing returns.
Two shields are not twice as good as one, they just get in the way of each other.
As a GM, I simply wouldn't allow them to stack at all, frankly.
My thought is that the bonuses are so small on shields, does it make a huge difference if they do stack
I have no problem with the enchantments not stacking. But the base +2? It just should make you harder to hit, even just a little bit shouldnt it
Yes it does, because with the right enchantments, classes, and feats, those bonuses get huge very quickly. Not to mention the other abilities that can be put on shields.My thought is that the bonuses are so small on shields, does it make a huge difference if they do stackHaving used a shield (and two of them also) in real life, I would argue a case of diminishing returns.
Two shields are not twice as good as one, they just get in the way of each other.
As a GM, I simply wouldn't allow them to stack at all, frankly.
I took for granted that those still don't stack. As is the case if you wear multiple sets of magical armor. Like any kind of magical light or medium armor, a magical armored kilt and bracers of armor.
So what remains is +1 or +2 shield bonus to AC.
Same would be true if you'd carry a box around you. But why would you? It's not like you could do anything except slowly walk around.Im just thinking say, two tower shields for lols. It should make you almost impossible to hit from the front at all.
At least when i think about it in the real world. Forming a tortoise with yourself basically
Ohk. Lets swap tower shield with heavy shield. That way you can shield bash with them.
I have no problem with the enchantments not stacking. But the base +2? It just should make you harder to hit, even just a little bit shouldnt it
Having attempted to actually USE two shields myself, I wouldn't agree with you.
One large shield is clunky, but can be used to deflect blows, two large shields collide with each other, and don't provide additional benefit (I might even argue they make you easier to hit compared to using a single shield).
In any case, ask your GM. Rules say you don't get shield bonus twice.
If GM at your table changes that, enjoy your +7 to AC :D Or +9 with enchanted tower shield (WOW!)
StuffStuffstuff
I took for granted that those still don't stack. As is the case if you wear multiple sets of magical armor. Like any kind of magical light or medium armor, a magical armored kilt and bracers of armor.
So what remains is +1 or +2 shield bonus to AC.
Do you suggest that the bases should stack? Just the base +1/2 AC
I have no problem with the enchantments not stacking. But the base +2? It just should make you harder to hit, even just a little bit shouldnt itHaving attempted to actually USE two shields myself, I wouldn't agree with you.
One large shield is clunky, but can be used to deflect blows, two large shields collide with each other, and don't provide additional benefit (I might even argue they make you easier to hit compared to using a single shield).
In any case, ask your GM. Rules say you don't get shield bonus twice.
If GM at your table changes that, enjoy your +7 to AC :D Or +9 with enchanted tower shield (WOW!)
I am my tables GM. I am looking for oppinions. How about two smaller shields? Bucklers for example? Two better than 1 for defense?
I know the rules say you dont get a bonus. Im asking for opinions on a homebrew to change that. And at what point to change that. I suppose. Does two light shields help. A light and heavy. 2 heavies. 2 towershields. When does it become a burden
EDIT: Typos and clarification
If we're really talking real life, carrying two tower shields would get you killed much faster than one. It's a simple matter to slip a sword in the crack between the two shields and just thrust till you rust. The shields are so heavy that the wielder is required to use them as a brace, not a maneuverable shield. Once that sword got in there, you've lost.
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.
Sure, there have been exceptions, but this was the standard. So to answer your question, no they shouldn't stack, even a little.
|
The game inherently gives everyone 10 AC just for being alert and taking actions but only 1 AC for a light shield. I think there is something inherently wrong with this math as a shield should help more overall. A person with a shield is certainly more than 5% harder to hit.
Shield use alternatives in homebrew:
-Shields should count as more AC but only for a few attacks a round limited by Shield AC or Dex modifer. Successful feinting allows them to bypass the shield or Dex (Feinters choice). Beating by 5 allows both.
-Improve fighting defensively by doubling the shield bonus with equal penalty to hit (you are effectively hiding behind your shield more).
The reason I mention this is using a second shield won't grant much more AC as it will impair vision and be cumbersome especially if used offensively. If used offensively, it will grant openings in combat that will negate the protection or make you to slow to react in other ways. By my estimation, I feel 1/2 AC value would be acceptable, but there should be an equal penalty to offense.
A last alternative would limit the second shield to range AC only but allow it to stack.
It should also be noted that IRL I never recalled any infantryman equipped with 2 shields. Rather than disallow it, I would still ensure it is sub-par offensively even if it does grant additional AC.
Very valid and interesting stuff
How about 2 bucklers? 2 tower shields i agree is just silly
|
But you are right, attacking from behind IS more effective, other systems reflect this, Pathfinder does not.
It breaks KISS too hard. It's not worth keeping track of for the minor benefit it adds to the system.
Though I could certainly see an argument that shield bonuses shouldn't apply to being flat-footed - otherwise it's a pretty safe assumption is that you're always moving to put the shield in the way etc.
|
|
Very valid and interesting stuffHow about 2 bucklers? 2 tower shields i agree is just silly
I don't see why that should have a defensive advantage versus buckler & blade.
Of note - while you don't get an in-game AC boost from wielding two shields, you do gain a defensive one at mid-high levels. One shield is for stacking +AC, and the other shield you stick on fortification etc on the cheap.
Using 2 shields effectively would require lots of training i imagine. Hence the no footsoldiers with 2 shields. Large shields i can agree with the points of getting in the way and such. But what about 2 bucklers or small shields like that. There are tiger shields i think used in certain types of kung fu
I have no problem with the enchantments not stacking. But the base +2? It just should make you harder to hit, even just a little bit shouldnt itHaving attempted to actually USE two shields myself, I wouldn't agree with you.
One large shield is clunky, but can be used to deflect blows, two large shields collide with each other, and don't provide additional benefit (I might even argue they make you easier to hit compared to using a single shield).
In any case, ask your GM. Rules say you don't get shield bonus twice.
If GM at your table changes that, enjoy your +7 to AC :D Or +9 with enchanted tower shield (WOW!)
I am my tables GM. I am looking for oppinions. How about two smaller shields? Bucklers for example? Two better than 1 for defense?
I know the rules say you dont get a bonus. Im asking for opinions on a homebrew to change that. And at what point to change that. I suppose. Does two light shields help. A light and heavy. 2 heavies. 2 towershields. When does it become a burden
EDIT: Typos and clarification
As far as two bucklers goes, I suppose you could use that effectively, but not without taking a feat (Two-weapon Defense?) because coordinating blocking with two shields is harder than one might think. Be careful of feats and effects like Shield Focus, though - make them only apply once. What I don't understand, though, is why someone would bother going this route for 3 Shield AC when they can Just use a Heavy Shield for 2 Shield AC with no feat investment, and still have a much more effective weapon. So I guess you could do something like this, but to make it realistic, as it appears you're trying to do, it just doesn't seem worth it.
Using 2 shields effectively would require lots of training i imagine. Hence the no footsoldiers with 2 shields. Large shields i can agree with the points of getting in the way and such. But what about 2 bucklers or small shields like that. There are tiger shields i think used in certain types of kung fu
IRL bucklers maybe...
In game... I still wouldn't do it.In any case, as the GM, you get to choose. I suggest not changing it, as it can radically alter the way the game works (as mentioned before, if you can have one on each hand, why not one on your back? Heck, strap one to your chest too! How about as a hat? Buckler shoes?)
Very valid and interesting stuffHow about 2 bucklers? 2 tower shields i agree is just sillyI don't see why that should have a defensive advantage versus buckler & blade.
Of note - while you don't get an in-game AC boost from wielding two shields, you do gain a defensive one at mid-high levels. One shield is for stacking +AC, and the other shield you stick on fortification etc on the cheap.
On 1: its easier to get a piece of steel with a surface area of say 130 square inches in the way of a sword thrust or mace than it is for you to get the say 20 square inch edge of the blade. If you block with the flat your blade breaks
|
|
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.
As someone who has fought with a large shield - I think you're entirely wrong. Sure - it might work if you're a lot bigger - but only after the guy got a chance to stab you. And if he's bigger? He'll charge you and you'll just bounce off of his shield, and he'll stab you again.
And of course - unlike in Pathfinder, many larger shields weren't strapped on at all. For example - the roman scutum was just held - not strapped on.
|
|
On 1: its easier to get a piece of steel with a surface area of say 130 square inches in the way of a sword thrust or mace than it is for you to get the say 20 square inch edge of the blade. If you block with the flat your blade breaksVery valid and interesting stuffHow about 2 bucklers? 2 tower shields i agree is just sillyI don't see why that should have a defensive advantage versus buckler & blade.
Of note - while you don't get an in-game AC boost from wielding two shields, you do gain a defensive one at mid-high levels. One shield is for stacking +AC, and the other shield you stick on fortification etc on the cheap.
Against a thrust - yes. But against a slash or mace? No. And swords didn't break that easily unless it was a katana. (known for being weak from the side)
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.As someone who has fought with a large shield - I think you're entirely wrong. Sure - it might work if you're a lot bigger - but only after the guy got a chance to stab you. And if he's bigger? He'll charge you and you'll just bounce off of his shield, and he'll stab you again.
And of course - unlike in Pathfinder, many larger shields weren't strapped on at all. For example - the roman scutum was just held - not strapped on.
I've always felt that a shield being strapped to your arm was stupid, so all the ones I have made have a handle and arm brace thingy you put your arm through. You can throw them to the ground in an instant. Works just fine.
I always felt safest with what would be considered a Small Shield by the rules... light enough to not be too encumbering, large enough to give a sense of security.
Might just be a bias, I'm not a game designer OR an armorer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about just homebrewing a feat? Perhaps if you fight with a second shield and you have the feat, you can apply a +2 dodge bonus. That way, you get something for fighting in that style, but you don't get the possibility of a second shield + enchantments.
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.As someone who has fought with a large shield - I think you're entirely wrong. Sure - it might work if you're a lot bigger - but only after the guy got a chance to stab you. And if he's bigger? He'll charge you and you'll just bounce off of his shield, and he'll stab you again.
And of course - unlike in Pathfinder, many larger shields weren't strapped on at all. For example - the roman scutum was just held - not strapped on.
I never said they were strapped. If your entire arm is underneath a large shield that has a large man on top of it, and your arm was already bent in the defensive position, the amount of time it would take you to wrench your arm free would be more than enough for the man who already had his dagger cocked and ready to make one thrust, even if it is at an awkward angle. and if the shield happened to be covering your torso too well, he'd switch targets and go for underneath your helmet.
Only you know just what kind of experience you had with a large shield, but the people in my example are historically recorded tactile fighters - the same kind that Pathfinder characters are supposed to represent. The strategy worked, and was part of basic training for many foot soldiers.
How about just homebrewing a feat? Perhaps if you fight with a second shield and you have the feat, you can apply a +2 dodge bonus. That way, you get something for fighting in that style, but you don't get the possibility of a second shield + enchantments.
That's actually a pretty decent idea.
If we're really talking real life, carrying two tower shields would get you killed much faster than one. It's a simple matter to slip a sword in the crack between the two shields and just thrust till you rust. The shields are so heavy that the wielder is required to use them as a brace, not a maneuverable shield. Once that sword got in there, you've lost.
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.
Sure, there have been exceptions, but this was the standard. So to answer your question, no they shouldn't stack, even a little.
Aren't large shields mainly useful against arrows, javelins and sling stones?
Realistically, against a guy with a sword, having a sword of your own (as opposed to, say, a dagger) would give you a big AC boost.
AC has never been realistic.
If we're really talking real life, carrying two tower shields would get you killed much faster than one. It's a simple matter to slip a sword in the crack between the two shields and just thrust till you rust. The shields are so heavy that the wielder is required to use them as a brace, not a maneuverable shield. Once that sword got in there, you've lost.
Strictly speaking, in real life, a bigger shield usually doesn't mean a higher AC in the first place. Sure, it covers more of an area, but the small buckler was actually the most effective shield in most combats, due to it's maneuverability. Large shields let attackers just tackle the defender to the ground and slip a short sword or dagger around the shield and into the ribs. The defender has a hard time freeing his arm from behind such a big shield. A small buckler doesn't let an attacker use that tactic.
Sure, there have been exceptions, but this was the standard. So to answer your question, no they shouldn't stack, even a little.
Aren't large shields mainly useful against arrows, javelins and sling stones?
Realistically, against a guy with a sword, having a sword of your own (as opposed to, say, a dagger) would give you a big AC boost.
AC has never been realistic.
I find it easier to deflect with a shield and counterattack, rather than use my only weapon to do what the shield is for...
But that's just me.
I won more than I lost when I was doing my fights, so I'm quoting actual experience smashing face with weapons. :D
How about just homebrewing a feat? Perhaps if you fight with a second shield and you have the feat, you can apply a +2 dodge bonus. That way, you get something for fighting in that style, but you don't get the possibility of a second shield + enchantments.That's actually a pretty decent idea.
I agree that that is a very good idea. I might just do that. Its not a massive bonus. Make shield focus a pre requisite possibly
If i remember correctly, blocking blows with weapons is incredibly difficult to do without damaging your weapon. If anything you deflect the blow rather than full block, and even that is hard to do properly
|
|
If i remember correctly, blocking blows with weapons is incredibly difficult to do without damaging your weapon. If anything you deflect the blow rather than full block, and even that is hard to do properly
It depends upon the weapon. Katana? Yes. Rapier? Somewhat. Broadsword? Block with that thing all day long. Just get it re-sharpened when you're done.
It would also depend on material. I imagine adamantine you are sorted to block and deflect with a bloody hairpin. Bronze not so much. Even on the broadsword. Butbskill wise would it not be easier to do it with a shield?
If you really want a real life argument, then both shields would be useless if you're attacked from the back.I always wondered why there were no facing rules in the game, to be honest...
I guess that's what flanking is for.
*shrugs*
But you are right, attacking from behind IS more effective, other systems reflect this, Pathfinder does not.
Facing systems add a lot of grit to the rules in comparison to what they add to the game.
When you have facing, you have to rule lots of things:
- What are the penalties for attacking from the side? The back?
- What are the penalties attacking to your side? Back?
- How does facing affect movement?
- How does facing affect perception? This also includes exotic modes of perception?
- How often can you change facing? Only on your turn? As a reaction? How much by?
- Is facing only orthogonal? Can you face diagonally?
- Do characters have necks or not? (i.e. can you look in a different direction than your body is facing)
- How do different body forms affect this? A biped can usually turn around quicker than a quadruped. And serpents can twist rapidly.
- For each of these limits, you would then need to interpret feats/class features/archetypes/spells/equipment/magic items that interact with them. For example, how does uncanny dodge work with this? Evasion? Blindsense? How do helmets affect your peripheral vision?
- You will then get demands from players about feats/class features/archetypes/spells/equipment/magic items that limit their vulnerability.
- Once you've done all this then you need to keep track of it in the game. Especially when characters have necks.
It would also depend on material. I imagine adamantine you are sorted to block and deflect with a bloody hairpin. Bronze not so much. Even on the broadsword. Butbskill wise would it not be easier to do it with a shield?
Yes and no. I mean, yes. If your game is JUST to block, and offer no offense whatsoever, then yes. But still only sort of. Swords let you block/deflect from farther away, and at more angles, than a shield. With a sword, you're able to block, and then chase your blade up the attacker's, and attempt to get their arms. I think the crux of this comparison is that a novice fighter will defend better with a shield, but a master swordsman will defend better with a weapon than even someone of equal skill using a shield - and it's because of his ability to switch from offense to defense at the drop of a hat; this ability to keep his opponent guessing is a better shield than an actual one, which has very straight-forward utility. An attacker isn't going to be wary of a shield, afraid that he might get cut on it if he isn't careful. He's free to grab the shield with his free-hand and wrench the defender off guard. Tactics like that aren't a favorable option with someone defending with a sword.
My point was that having a sword (and no shield) will give you a lot more AC than having neither a sword nor a shield - whether you're parrying or just keeping your opponent at bay. This isn't well-represented in D20 rules.
If you really want a real life argument, then both shields would be useless if you're attacked from the back.I always wondered why there were no facing rules in the game, to be honest...
I guess that's what flanking is for.
*shrugs*
But you are right, attacking from behind IS more effective, other systems reflect this, Pathfinder does not.
Facing systems add a lot of grit to the rules in comparison to what they add to the game.
When you have facing, you have to rule lots of things:
- What are the penalties for attacking from the side? The back?
- What are the penalties attacking to your side? Back?
- How does facing affect movement?
- How does facing affect perception? This also includes exotic modes of perception?
- How often can you change facing? Only on your turn? As a reaction? How much by?
- Is facing only orthogonal? Can you face diagonally?
- Do characters have necks or not? (i.e. can you look in a different direction than your body is facing)
- How do different body forms affect this? A biped can usually turn around quicker than a quadruped. And serpents can twist rapidly.
- For each of these limits, you would then need to interpret feats/class features/archetypes/spells/equipment/magic items that interact with them. For example, how does uncanny dodge work with this? Evasion? Blindsense? How do helmets affect your peripheral vision?
- You will then get demands from players about feats/class features/archetypes/spells/equipment/magic items that limit their vulnerability.
- Once you've done all this then you need to keep track of it in the game. Especially when characters have necks.
I most familiar with facing in Mekton, which uses hexagons. Your front arc (3 hexes) is front, the two spots (left and right of front arc) grant a minor bonus to attackers. rear (one hex) grant +2 (which isn't a huge bonus). You might not be allowed to dodge attacks from the rear... haven't played in a decade, don't recall... Maybe you just can't use shields in certain arcs... hrm... Facing can change only during your turn and costs movement (Jets have turn radius, humanoids do not etc).
It's not that complicated, it's a basic mechanic of the system.
Facing would be clumsy in Pathfinder because of using a grid, like you said, diagonal facing? That's basically eight facings.
I think pathfinder works just fine as it is, facing is not required.
To the OP, you apparently don't realize how shields work.
It's not like you just strap a shield onto some part of your body (arm, back, head, knee, whatever) and then sometimes your opponent is like "Oh, darn, I wanted to hit you in the giblets but, well, oops! I accidentally hit your shield. I mean, I saw your shield there, and I wanted to hit you somewhere else, somewhere not protected by that shield, but my arm betrayed me and attacked your unmoving shield. My bad!"
Shields are an active defense. You see a blow coming your way so you DELIBERATELY move your shield into the path of the blow to block that blow.
If you have one shield, you move ONE shield to block the blow. If you have two shields, you move ONE shield to block the blow. If you have 14 shields, you move ONE shield to block the blow.
If you think about it, having a shield on each arm to block a blow coming your way, you COULD try to move BOTH shields in front of the blow, but when it hits the first shield, the blow is blocked and the second shield DOES NOTHING. Or the guy changes the angle of his blow, in which case it goes somewhere else, somewhere where you did NOT put your shields, and it hits you.
On the other hand, if you put one shield here and the other shield there (so the second shield is NOT behind the first), then the guy hitting you only has to beat one shield, whichever one is closest to the point he attacks - that's the one you're actively using to block and the other one is just sitting there doing nothing.
In other words, in all scenarios, only one shield matters. Ergo, they don't stack.
|
|
My point was that having a sword (and no shield) will give you a lot more AC than having neither a sword nor a shield - whether you're parrying or just keeping your opponent at bay. This isn't well-represented in D20 rules.
Yeah - you'd need a system where the two combatants make opposed rolls - the winner scoring the hit. This would combine offense & defense a lot, at least in 1v1 melee duels. (Not a bad idea - but it doesn't work in d20. You'd need to totally revamp the initiative system to start.)
To the OP, you apparently don't realize how shields work.
It's not like you just strap a shield onto some part of your body (arm, back, head, knee, whatever) and then sometimes your opponent is like "Oh, darn, I wanted to hit you in the giblets but, well, oops! I accidentally hit your shield. I mean, I saw your shield there, and I wanted to hit you somewhere else, somewhere not protected by that shield, but my arm betrayed me and attacked your unmoving shield. My bad!"
Shields are an active defense. You see a blow coming your way so you DELIBERATELY move your shield into the path of the blow to block that blow.
If you have one shield, you move ONE shield to block the blow. If you have two shields, you move ONE shield to block the blow. If you have 14 shields, you move ONE shield to block the blow.
If you think about it, having a shield on each arm to block a blow coming your way, you COULD try to move BOTH shields in front of the blow, but when it hits the first shield, the blow is blocked and the second shield DOES NOTHING. Or the guy changes the angle of his blow, in which case it goes somewhere else, somewhere where you did NOT put your shields, and it hits you.
On the other hand, if you put one shield here and the other shield there (so the second shield is NOT behind the first), then the guy hitting you only has to beat one shield, whichever one is closest to the point he attacks - that's the one you're actively using to block and the other one is just sitting there doing nothing.
In other words, in all scenarios, only one shield matters. Ergo, they don't stack.
I think the OP was envisioning a person using multiple shields to defend against multiple attackers.
I think the OP was envisioning a person using multiple shields to defend against multiple attackers.
Excellent.
So when Orc #1 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #2 attacks, you block with shield #2. When orc #3 attacks, you block with shield #3. Etc. In all those cases, you're still using one shield, no stacking shield bonuses, to block each attack.
At what time do you block with shield #1 and shield #2 AT THE SAME TIME? Even against multiple attackers?
Answer: You don't, for the reasons I said above.
Luckily, in Pathfinder, you could be surrounded by 8 orcs attacking you from 8 different directions, and even though you have only ONE shield, you can use it to block (e.g. add its shield bonus to your AC) against all 8 attacks (they get flanking, but you still get your shield bonus against every attack). So when Orc #1 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #2 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #3 attacks, you block with shield #1. Etc.
So you never need two shields. Not for defense. You can't block one blow with two shields, and you never need two shields to block two (or more) blows.
I think the OP was envisioning a person using multiple shields to defend against multiple attackers.Excellent.
So when Orc #1 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #2 attacks, you block with shield #2. When orc #3 attacks, you block with shield #3. Etc. In all those cases, you're still using one shield, no stacking shield bonuses, to block each attack.
At what time do you block with shield #1 and shield #2 AT THE SAME TIME? Even against multiple attackers?
Answer: You don't, for the reasons I said above.
Luckily, in Pathfinder, you could be surrounded by 8 orcs attacking you from 8 different directions, and even though you have only ONE shield, you can use it to block (e.g. add its shield bonus to your AC) against all 8 attacks (they get flanking, but you still get your shield bonus against every attack). So when Orc #1 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #2 attacks, you block with shield #1. When orc #3 attacks, you block with shield #1. Etc.
So you never need two shields. Not for defense. You can't block one blow with two shields, and you never need two shields to block two (or more) blows.
The OP's question was about real life, not turn-based combat. If two people are attacking you from two directions, two shields could theoretically work. Note I said theoretically. I agree that two shields aren't a realistic means of defense, but if practiced with and used properly, wouldn't be useless like you're saying. The idea of this thread was to apply that strategy to the mechanics of the game with house rules.
DM Blake. I do know how shields work. Im attempting to see what peoples opinions of this are. You think it is silly. And i agree in a field surrounded by 8 attackers it is. But in real life you will find no matter what you do you would be lucky to survive that. Unless you are a fighting god.
Now if 1 shield is all you ever need to defend against an infinite number of attackers why were things like the roman tortoise so effective?
If a character can train to be profficient at stricking with two weapons simultaneously why cant they be trained to defend with two shields simultaneously angainst simultaneous attacks?
DM Blake. I do know how shields work. Im attempting to see what peoples opinions of this are. You think it is silly. And i agree in a field surrounded by 8 attackers it is. But in real life you will find no matter what you do you would be lucky to survive that. Unless you are a fighting god.
Now if 1 shield is all you ever need to defend against an infinite number of attackers why were things like the roman tortoise so effective?
If a character can train to be profficient at stricking with two weapons simultaneously why cant they be trained to defend with two shields simultaneously angainst simultaneous attacks?
The roman formation became what it was because it allowed the men to use their single shields to help EACH OTHER, and some men would stick spears out, pointy end towards the enemy.
In no situation did they use multiple shields.
There is a teamwork feat that allows you to duplicate what the Romans did, Shield Wall.
It's pretty clear that you feel two shields should be viable in the game, and as GM, it is your right to make it so.
So go do that. It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with you.
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?
I never said anything about silly.
I demonstrated how shields are used, to actively block an attack. I demonstrated that it is pretty much impossible to block one attack with two shields.
I referred to Pathfinder rules about shield bonuses.
In Pathfinder, it literally is possible to protect YOURSELF with a single shield from every attack. It's also possible for every attack to hit you even when you use your shield perfectly (when the attackers roll high enough to beat your AC even with the shield bonus).
As for Roman tortoise, they were protecting not just themselves, but their neighboring soldiers too, from a hail of arrows. When enemy archers, in formations that usually consisted of hundreds of bowmen, all fired when their commander ordered them to fire, so that the Roman legion would be hit with hundreds of arrows simultaneously, it was impossible IRL for a few dozen men to block hundreds of simultaneous arrows. So they built a front wall and a roof out of their shields.
They didn't have the Pathfinder advantage of literally being able to block (add Shield AC bonus) hundreds of simultaneous attacks.
You'll note, even in real life, those were not tower shields and nobody had more than one.
In Pathfinder terms, the tortoise formation would be used to provide total cover, rather than a shield bonus. You can almost do that with a single tower shield, though the rules don't really support using it like a roof while moving.