Double slice and shield

[K1]

Can a shield be used to perform a double slice move?

Like weapon+shield (modded shield, if you consider only the mod the weapon )

[d'Eon]

Shield bash is listed in the weapons, don't see why you couldn't. It's not agile, but it doesn't have to be

[Wheldrake]

Shields can be used as weapons. You could even double slash for two actions, then raise the shield in defense.

[tivadar27]

This has been debated, but I think the definitive thing to be said is you can double slice with either shield boss or shield spikes, which are both listed as weapons. "shield bash" is an attack, but it's specifically stated as "not a weapon" and double slice requires a weapon in both hands. I'm of the opinion that with only a shield, you cannot double slice, though others may disagree.

[thenobledrake]

The problem with trying to treat shield bash differently than shield boss and shield spikes is that all 3 are listed the same way on the weapon table (there is no "this one's doesn't count a weapon" tag), and the description of the boss includes the language "...increases the bludgeoning damage of a shield bash" while the spikes say "...to deal piercing damage with a shield bash."

So either all 3 do count as weapons, or all 3 do not.

[K1]

There is a quote which says that shields are not weapons, though the can be used as weapons.

While modded, you can use a shield Spike or boss as a weapon, and even enhance it.

They made a mess with the rules ( shields have also weapon critical specialization ). I can't find a good reason not to consider shields as weapons but only the spikes on the shields, but the rules are somehow not clear at all.

[tivadar27]

Agree with @K1 here, in general, the rules state:

"A shield can be used as a martial weapon for attacks,
using the statistics listed for a shield bash on Table 6–7:
Melee Weapons (page 280). The shield bash is an option
only for shields that weren’t designed to be used as
weapons. A shield can’t have runes added to it. You can
also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to a
shield to make it a more practical weapon. These can be
found on Table 6–7. These work like other weapons and
can even be etched with runes."

So the problem here is it states that shields can be used as martial weapons via shield bash, not that they *are* weapons. This does lend some credence to the "shields are weapons" camp, and basically confirms that spikes and boss are weapons. But later:

"Shield Bash: A shield bash is not actually a
weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or
swing your shield to hit your foe with an
impromptu attack."

Here it states shield bash is not an actual weapon... and an impromptu attack. Which lends credence to the fact that shields aren't, in fact, actual weapons, but when used for shield bash are considered martial weapons for the attack. The requirement for double slice is holding a weapon in both hands...

At my tables I'll probably allow both, but I'm of the opinion that shield bash is not as written an actual weapon, even if that was the intent. Of course, adding spikes/boss solves the issue without debate, so I'll likely just do that for my characters.

[tivadar27]

thenobledrake wrote:

(there is no "this one's doesn't count a weapon" tag)

See above, there is, actually, exactly this in the description, which is what complicates matters quite a bit.

[Mellored]

"Shield Bash" is "not actually a weapon"

"Shield Boss" & "Spiked Shield" "work like other weapons".

So assuming you paid the extra 5SP, yes. You can double slice.

[Captain Caveman]

...

Folks, you need to stop, take a step back, and think about the context of what you are quoting and what the authors are writing about.

For example, let's say you are an author working on a list of weapon descriptions for Chapter 6 of the PHB. Most readers know what a sword is, but maybe they've never met a real live gnome before and don't know what in the world a "flickmace" is. Thus, you have to write a list with a sentence or two for each weapon to describe what something like a flickmace actually *IS*.

You start your list, working from Alchemical Bomb through to Whip. You let people know that a Flickmace is "more a short flail than a mace...", and that the blade of a Kukri "curves inward and lacks a a cross guard at the hilt". You're working your way down through Scimitar and Scythe, and then you hit a problem...you can't give a description of what a "shield bash" weapon is. Do you know why? It's because...

"A shield bash is not actually a weapon, but a maneuver in which you thrust or swing your shield to hit your foe with an impromptu attack".

That's it. It's descriptive text for that "weapon", just like every other entry in that list. It's not intended to be anything else.

Or, alternatively, if you really believe that that sentence is a rule, where is the descriptive text telling everyone what a shield bash is? Why is that the only entry not to have a description? Why are there ZERO other rules in that list that aren't covered by the weapon table on p. 280?

[tivadar27]

Or maybe things in the core RULE book are rules.... I mean, if you want to say because a shield bash says it "is not actually a weapon" this implies that is is a weapon, because... it's descriptive text for a weapon? You are trying to minimize *some* text as rules text but elevate other text. That's not a valid argument.

I do agree that there's a lot of ambiguity here, but to argue that we should ignore the description of the attack that specifically calls it out as "not a weapon", isn't really fair. There's text describing each weapon, so when a weapon is called out as "not a weapon", that's rules text that's valid to take into consideration.

[Ferious Thune]

From what I can tell, it's saying that a Shield Bash is not a weapon, because a Shield Bash is not a physical thing. It's a maneuver. That would seem to have little to do with whether or not a Shield, the actual physical thing you are holding, is a weapon.

It does seem the simplest thing is to be cautious and assume that a Shield is only a weapon if it has a Boss or Spike, then pay the relatively minimal cost to add one of those two things onto the Shield. It also seems like if you're planning to use it with double slice that you'd want one of those two items added on anyway.

Rather than anything in the Shield Bash entry, the much stronger argument against a Shield being a weapon appears to be that you can't add weapon runes to it (but could for the Boss or Spike).

[Captain Caveman]

tivadar27 wrote:

Or maybe things in the core RULE book are rules.... I mean, if you want to say because a shield bash says it "is not actually a weapon" this implies that is is a weapon, because... it's descriptive text for a weapon? You are trying to minimize *some* text as rules text but elevate other text. That's not a valid argument.

I do agree that there's a lot of ambiguity here, but to argue that we should ignore the description of the attack that specifically calls it out as "not a weapon", isn't really fair. There's text describing each weapon, so when a weapon is called out as "not a weapon", that's rules text that's valid to take into consideration.

Uhhh..what? There are things all over the "RULE" book that are quite obviously NOT rules. Like...all over the place. For example, nothing else in the list of weapon descriptions is a rule. They are flavor. "Staff: this piece of long wood can aid in walking and deliver a mighty blow". Flavor. Why aren't we all scrambling for clarification on rules for how the staff helps walking?

A shield bash is not a weapon because the shield is the weapon. You yourself referred to a shield bash as an attack. Why? Because a shield bash in the English language is not actually a weapon. It's something you do with your shield. It can be called an attack, a maneuver, an action...whatever...but it's not a weapon, hence the description. You wouldn't call a sword thrust a weapon either, but that doesn't suddenly call into question what a sword is. To describe a "shield bash" as a weapon is just linguistically incorrect.

I anticipated this response in my original post though, and you didn't answer the question that went with it: If the sentence for shield bash is a rule, where is the common language description of the shield bash? Every other entry in that weapon list has a description of what it is, so where is the shield bash description if the one sentence that is there is a rule?

Rules for shields are in the shield section: "A shield can be used as a martial weapon". "You can also buy and attach a shield boss or shield spikes to...make it a more practical weapon". You don't make something a "more practical weapon" if it isn't already a weapon. Even the "you can't put runes on shields" shows they're a weapon. You wouldn't actually bother to write that rule if they weren't weapons. What would be the point? You can't put weapon runes on non-weapons! You only need to call shields out as an exception if they ARE weapons and you don't want runes on them.

Anyway, I have no particular delusions that I'll actually change someone's mind on an internet forum, so this is probably my last post on the subject. Just realize you are quoting from a section that is clearly labeled "Weapon Descriptions", and that this section is otherwise universally just plain-English chat about the various weapons in the table preceding it.

[Ramanujan]

Captain Caveman wrote:

Anyway, I have no particular delusions that I'll actually change someone's mind on an internet forum, so this is probably my last post on the subject.

For what it is worth, while you may not have ‘changed my mind’, because I didn’t really have a set opinion before reading this thread, I did find your replies useful.

[tivadar27]

@Captain Caveman: Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other a bit here. This thread had people say that because "shield bash" is listed in the weapon table, a shield is a weapon. Quoting the description of that entry, which includes the text we're referencing, really makes that not a very good argument. Do we at least agree on that?

Beyond this, the evidence we have is that Shield is not listed as a weapon, though there is text, as you've quoted, that says it "can be used as a martial weapon for attacks". I think that's pretty ambiguous by itself, as improvised weapons can also be used as weapons, as can fists, and that clause goes on to say that this is only for "shields that weren't designed to be used as weapons" and then goes on to describe spikes and boss which "work like other weapons", implying that shields, at some level, don't, though that could be just for runes depending on how you read it.

I'll ignore the entire weapon table and descriptions if you think that's fair. I'd agree this is definitely something that's ambiguous, but to me, there seems to be more evidence indicating shields aren't weapons and can merely be used to make shield bash attacks, which are treated as a martial weapon attack.

[K1]

To me, caveman reasoning is fine.

Imho, they should have simply put shield raise as a weapon property, like swipe, deadly, disarm and so on.

And depends how you mod your shield, or how your shield is made, you will have P or B Damage.

[Hiruma Kai]

If shields were intended to be the same as all other weapons in terms of rules, why did they put "shield bash" on the weapon table and simply not "shield". They didn't use the term "Greatsword swing" or "Hammer bash" on the weapon table. Shields were singled out for some reason in the developers mind.

My best guess is they thought it was a balance consideration. Consider the level 4 fighter feat Twin Parry.

You can either spend a feat to get +1 AC, or +2 AC if you're wielding a particular 1d4 damage weapon - or you could just buy a spiked shield dealing 1d6 damage for a couple gold and an agile short sword and just raise your shield instead of taking an action to parry to get +2 AC. Grab reactive shield, and on turns where nobody is provoking you can swap your reaction for +2 AC and use your 3 actions for other stuff.

Now I agree you probably should be able to use the shield in a double slice, but it does make the Twin Parry->Twin Riposte->Twinned Defense line look sub-optimal to me when compared to the Reactive Shield->Quick Shield Block->Paragon's Guard line.

Edit: I suppose for rangers Reactive shield or Paragon's Guard are not options, so perhaps I should shouldn't be comparing them in that case.

[K1]

The twin parry example doesn’t fit at all, because you are considering only what you want to consider.

Twin parry gives you 2 ac or 1 ac depends thr weapon you are using.

Double slice will use both weapons traits.

Raise shield gives you the shield ac, and eventually allows you to use the Shield Block reaction.

Reactive shield uses your reaction to raise your shield, but then you wont be able to trade the dmg you receive.

That said, let us make some examples

1h + free hand.

- All athletics maneuvers

- +2 ac as action

- Traits depends the weapon you are using

- A good weapon specialization (not free shove, but something useful )

- Eventually, a high weapon dice.

Two weapons

- 2x weapon traits ( eventually,2 or 3 athetics maneuvers )

- choice between a parry weapon,for higher AC, or different traits.

- Eventually, the agile trait to avoid a -2 on second hit, which will be a total -3 because of agile trait.

- Most of the parry weapon have to agile trait. So it is win win.

- eventually, higher dice.

- eventually, 2 weapon specializations.

Shield + weapon

- 1x weapon traits ( if you go for an agile weapon and decide that shield is your first attack, then you will probably have no athletics moves, in adjunct to a low dice )

- +2 ac

- forced to 1d6 dice ( if you have a shield, you have 1d6 )

- 1 weapon specialization ( which won't be the shield one, because is the worst. Unless some troll build for a fighter who hit with a shield ).

- possibility of shield block, or raise shield. Depends what you want to do on your turn.

That said, I tend to go backwards asking about the developers intentions.

Did they put shields on the weapon table because they were drunk?

Same for the shield as weapon specialization?

Or they were drinking while they were writing the description of the shield?

Everything points out the latter.

[Hiruma Kai]

You make some good points. The option to say trip or disarm with two different agile weapons is something someone might want. And certainly rangers potentially benefit more with their reduced MAP options combined with two agile weapons as opposed to 1 agile and 1 not. The fighter's two-weapon flurry also benefits more from two agile weapons.

Not sure how to take the drunk developer comments though.

[K1]

Hiruma Kai wrote:

Not sure how to take the drunk developer comments though.

Aha

It was just free mocking for the mess in the whole book.

But also to say that it is more probable that they messed up with a flavor description than by adding weapons on a weapon table or by giving a non weapon a weapon specialization.

Indeed we are all new with p2, and the game is fresh and it is Normal that some stuff needs to be addressed, but sometimes I say that it is just us, the players, who try to find hidden meanings or to interpretate words even when there is no need.

Like animal companion magic items, when there is a specific magic item category.

[Mellored]

K1 wrote:

That said, I tend to go backwards asking about the developers intentions.

Did they put shields on the weapon table because they were drunk?

I think they put it on so you could get proficiency to your bash. Otherwise a level 20 fighter would not be able to hit a level 10 creature. (Though still need a boss for the item bonus).

Also, you forgot a shield (+boss) + freehand.
+2 AC, all the block feats, all the athletics maneuvers. -weapon attributes / die size.

Snagging Strike + Combat Grab + Raise Shield + Block is a good turn, especially if you got others who can capitalize on the flat footed. Then just fill up on the rest of the blocking feats.

[K1]

It is the actual build i have.

Shield boss plus spiked glove.

Unfortunately it deals very low dmg if compared to the others. And the more you proceed, the less the damage.

On the chart is good, but you have to exploiting by knowing enemy ts and using Assurance athetics.

However, high damage is always better.

Ok using a 1d6 offhand, but if you use a 1d4 main hand you are definitely a burden. This way is better 1 hand bastard sword or dwarven axe, which can become 2h when needed, plus maneuvers.

[tivadar27]

I do love the versatility of Shield Boss + Doubling Ring + being able to swap your main-hand weapon to suit the occasion. I do wonder if the greater ring will replicate onto low-grade silver weapons, for example, if the level of the property rune is higher however.

[K1]

Better to have a spiked glove with shifting rune and a duplicate ring

It gives the bonuses to shield, while your main attack, maybe with extra elemental dmg, will be on something with a higher dice.

[tivadar27]

Not understanding what you're suggesting... Runes on the shield boss/spikes with doubling ring means that your main weapon (with a higher damage die) gets all the bonuses your shield would (minus that caveat for special materials).

EDIT: Actually mind if I PM you/you do me on this? Feels like we're getting a bit off the main topic here :).

[K1]

I mean that with the first ring you won't be able to get extra effects untill middle late game, with the tier 2, so it is wiser to have enchant like fire dmg and similar on the main weapon, or a glove which can be morphed into a sword.

Then you duplicate Striking/potency runes on shield.

[Mellored]

K1 wrote:

On the chart is good, but you have to exploiting by knowing enemy ts and using Assurance athetics.

Neither Snagging Strike or Combat Grab require athletics.

I mean, you still want trained so they can't easily escape, but your not making any check.

Quote:

Ok using a 1d6 offhand, but if you use a 1d4 main hand you are definitely a burden.

I had no plan on attacking with anything but the shield. Just bash + grab + block = enemy can't move, enemy deals less damage, allies get +2 to hit enemy.

Guess that makes it a bit off topic, since it's not using double slice, but though I would point it out.