PDA

View Full Version : 3.5 DnD question: Use 2 shields?



rezplz
2009-07-03, 03:58 PM
I was thinking of a possible fighter build that involved, instead of weilding conventional weapons, would just use two spiked shields and he'd go around shield bashing everything. I was looking in the rulebooks to see if this would be allowed - would the two shield bonuses stack, or would it be pointless do do a build like this?

Mavian
2009-07-03, 04:00 PM
Bonuses of the same type never stack.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-03, 04:00 PM
I was thinking of a possible fighter build that involved, instead of weilding conventional weapons, would just use two spiked shields and he'd go around shield bashing everything. I was looking in the rulebooks to see if this would be allowed - would the two shield bonuses stack, or would it be pointless do do a build like this?

This makes the rounds every so often... it would be pointless.

Shield bonuses to AC do not stack. Therefore it is in every way inferior to using a weapon and shield combination.

yilduz
2009-07-03, 04:02 PM
I've wondered about it in the past. I know that bonuses of the same type don't stack, but it doesn't make sense in this instance. If you're carrying two shields, you'll likely be harder to hit than if you're carrying one shield.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-03, 04:05 PM
I've wondered about it in the past. I know that bonuses of the same type don't stack, but it doesn't make sense in this instance. If you're carrying two shields, you'll likely be harder to hit than if you're carrying one shield.

Morbo Says Shield Not Work That Way!

Siosilvar
2009-07-03, 04:10 PM
You could do it, but you'd only get one shield bonus at a time (either the one you didn't bash with, or the higher bonus).

Zaq
2009-07-03, 04:14 PM
You can carry a spiked shield in your main hand and a tower shield in your off hand. Normally you'll only get the tower shield's bonus, but when you take the action to use the tower shield to get full cover, you lose its shield bonus to AC, so you get the spiked shield's bonus then.

Not really worth it, but it's as close to useful as you can come, really.

Well, I suppose one benefit of the two-shield approach is that you can load them both up with enhancements... the numerical plusses don't stack, but different magical properties would. If you care about that sort of thing, really feel like you need more of it, and are a high enough level to afford it, I guess that's an option.

Riffington
2009-07-03, 04:53 PM
Therefore it is in every way inferior to using a weapon and shield combination.

In almost every way. There is one benefit: you can get your Weapon Focus/Specialization/etc to both.

erikun
2009-07-03, 04:55 PM
Shield bonuses to AC do not stack. Therefore it is in every way inferior to using a weapon and shield combination.
Not quite: you could take Improved Critial and Two Weapon Fighting, and have it apply to both shields. :smallamused:

[Edit] Darn you ninjas!

But as said before, two shield bonuses do not stack; you would take the higher of the two. This also includes Two Weapon Defense - because TWD is a shield bonus, it would grant you no benefit if used with an actual shield.

arguskos
2009-07-03, 05:09 PM
I had a player who used the aforementioned Tower Shield+Shield Bash technique. It was amazingly effective, even with the -2 on attacks from the Tower Shield. He was disturbingly hard to hit, made worse by the fact that he was a knight. o.O

Didn't do vast amounts of damage, but tanked amazingly well.

Demons_eye
2009-07-03, 05:13 PM
You can enchant the two with different things. That might be fun.

RandomNPC
2009-07-03, 05:14 PM
you're invited to my games, i'll allow the nonmagical part of the bonus, due to it actually being a large plate of metal or wood between you and the opponent. We could even work out some kind of dual strike feat with bull rush and two spiked shields, maybe a rend effect later on.

But RAW, no, you crazy person you.

i like the way you think.

Frosty
2009-07-03, 05:25 PM
If you're gonna use two shield,s just go the two-weapon fighting route and shield bash 7 times a round. 8 with haste.

Glyde
2009-07-03, 05:26 PM
http://sites.google.com/site/maptoolcampaigns/homebrew/shiningaegis

Its a little prestige class I created for a friend of mine. A *lot* of the bonuses could end up being pre-reqs instead, and the class could easily be made into 10 level instead of 5. Also, the divine casting can easily be omitted.

It's far from truly balanced - Just a quick something.

Shpadoinkle
2009-07-03, 05:49 PM
Bonuses of the same type never stack.

Liar. Dodge bonuses stack.

Zain
2009-07-03, 05:56 PM
i like the tower shield/spiked shield idea... 50% miss chance and +2 to AC:smallbiggrin:

Mavian
2009-07-03, 06:01 PM
Liar. Dodge bonuses stack.

True, I should've stated that almost no bonuses of the same type stack.

Glimbur
2009-07-03, 06:13 PM
You could enchant one shield for defense with lots of boring +enhancement to AC, and the other for offense with Bashing and shield spikes and such... then put other defensive things like Death Ward or even Time Buttress on it too. But that would be silly.

Diamondeye
2009-07-03, 06:32 PM
It wouldn't work, and more to the point would be so absurd that if I were a DM I would disallow it on the basis that it's absurd. It's one of those characters that either is intended to slide some exploit in the rules by me or else is simply to get attention.

I don't allow characters that exist for no other reasont han to do something bizarre.

arguskos
2009-07-03, 06:36 PM
It wouldn't work, and more to the point would be so absurd that if I were a DM I would disallow it on the basis that it's absurd. It's one of those characters that either is intended to slide some exploit in the rules by me or else is simply to get attention.

I don't allow characters that exist for no other reasont han to do something bizarre.
Explain why a person can't wield two shields, one for defense and one for hitting things?

Diamondeye
2009-07-03, 06:48 PM
Explain why a person can't wield two shields, one for defense and one for hitting things?

Because they'd get in the way of each other. Yes, I know that they wouldn't according to RAW, but I don't run my games by strictly RAW. If it were a practical way to fight someone else would be doing it. It's just silly.

Moreover, I really don't owe you an explaination for why I don't allow absurd or silly characters in my games, but I'll give you one anyhow: characters built around stuff liek this inevitably cause problems. The player knows its weird and attention getting, and when the novelty of the 2-shield technique or whatever wears off, they're on to some other thing to get attention.

Either that or there's some weird rules exploit they've discovered using this technique and they intend to try to rules-lawyer me into allowing it. Since I take a dim view of rules-lawyering in the first place, I nip it in the bud on the basis of being absurd.

arguskos
2009-07-03, 07:33 PM
Because they'd get in the way of each other. Yes, I know that they wouldn't according to RAW, but I don't run my games by strictly RAW. If it were a practical way to fight someone else would be doing it. It's just silly.

Moreover, I really don't owe you an explaination for why I don't allow absurd or silly characters in my games, but I'll give you one anyhow: characters built around stuff liek this inevitably cause problems. The player knows its weird and attention getting, and when the novelty of the 2-shield technique or whatever wears off, they're on to some other thing to get attention.

Either that or there's some weird rules exploit they've discovered using this technique and they intend to try to rules-lawyer me into allowing it. Since I take a dim view of rules-lawyering in the first place, I nip it in the bud on the basis of being absurd.
I didn't actually ask for the latter explanation, but thank you. I don't agree on any of your points, but hey, it works for you, right? :smallsmile:

As for the shields, I can say from personal experience that yes, you can actually use two shields effectively. It's not as good as a sword and shield, but it can be done. I'll respect your right to not like it though. :smallsmile:

AstralFire
2009-07-03, 08:15 PM
I nip it in the bud on the basis of being absurd.

:smallconfused: There's nothing wrong with trying to be a bit silly and attention-getting, so long as it does not significantly get in the way of other things you do; indeed, I'd offer that such people are the majority of what make life enjoyable.

Lycanthromancer
2009-07-03, 08:50 PM
I like playing things that are different, but not for rules exploits, and not because I'm an attention-whore.

I just don't like the standard-issue character-fodder presented in the 3.5 core books (which has greatly annoyed a number of DMs I've played with, because they refused to accept that non-Tolkienesque fantasy was actually fantasy of any kind).

Maybe the person wanting to play the 2-shield fighter simply wants mechanical novelty, or maybe he saw a few abilities he thought would be cool if done just so.

I can think of a number of shield abilities that I'd think would be interesting alternatives to two weapons or a weapon and a shield.

ShneekeyTheLost
2009-07-04, 12:17 AM
Not quite: you could take Improved Critial and Two Weapon Fighting, and have it apply to both shields. :smallamused:

[Edit] Darn you ninjas!

But as said before, two shield bonuses do not stack; you would take the higher of the two. This also includes Two Weapon Defense - because TWD is a shield bonus, it would grant you no benefit if used with an actual shield.

Or you could do the same with two longswords and have better damage output

Talic
2009-07-04, 12:31 AM
Actually, if you're going sword and board, A shield isn't a bad weapon to use as the sword.

You shield bas with it, and lose its bonus to AC... Which you still have otherwise from the other shield.

It does good damage, and, in a pinch, has several feats for throwing and the like. You can power attack with it... I mean, it's a good combination.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-04, 12:37 AM
I had an idea for a prestige class that was pretty much a walking wall, allowing shield bonuses to stack. Shield Guardian. I didn't want to copy the construct, but that was the name I chose in the end. Masters of armor and defense. They couldn't be evil (at least to enter and gain levels), and could ad their AC to their allies'. They weren't supposed to be very realistic, but I like the idea.

Admiral Squish
2009-07-04, 12:48 AM
I had an idea for a prestige class that was pretty much a walking wall, allowing shield bonuses to stack. Shield Guardian. I didn't want to copy the construct, but that was the name I chose in the end. Masters of armor and defense. They couldn't be evil (at least to enter and gain levels), and could ad their AC to their allies'. They weren't supposed to be very realistic, but I like the idea.

Aaaand now I have to make that. Thank you for taking up that much more of my time.

Anyway, Dwarven Defender allows shield bonuses to stack, but it's a horrible prestige class. If you want anything decent involving two shields, you need some sort of homebrew to be involved.

Lycanthromancer
2009-07-04, 12:49 AM
One shield with the ranged (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/armorAndShields.htm#ranged) enhancement for bashing and throwing, another for AC, and one animated tower shield?

What happens if you have a thri-kreen? Do you get four regular shields and one animated tower shield?

Hat-Trick
2009-07-04, 12:54 AM
Aaaand now I have to make that. Thank you for taking up that much more of my time.

Don't forget to give them full movement in armor and lessened armor penalties. Oh, and they could bash with a tower shield. I think there was also something about them being able to knock opponents back, and usually prone.

Admiral Squish
2009-07-04, 01:06 AM
Don't forget to give them full movement in armor and lessened armor penalties. Oh, and they could bash with a tower shield. I think there was also something about them being able to knock opponents back, and usually prone.

I was thinking the tower shield would be involved as a bonus to, and maybe damage on, a bull rush, as well as preventing AoOs from the target.

Lycanthromancer
2009-07-04, 01:09 AM
Hmm. Shields are martial weapons, and there's bloodstorm blade which allows you to throw at range...

Thri-kreen bloodstorm blade?

Frosty
2009-07-04, 01:10 AM
Well the Captain America build certainly utilizes Bloodstorm Blade and shields...

Hat-Trick
2009-07-04, 01:28 AM
I was thinking the tower shield would be involved as a bonus to, and maybe damage on, a bull rush, as well as preventing AoOs from the target.

I see them more as brawler when it comes to combat. Sure, they charge, but they can just smash you in the face with a shield and send you flying a bit. I find this better, because they don't have to move and disrupt their formation/defensive position.

Talon Sky
2009-07-04, 09:07 AM
but they can just smash you in the face

I don't know why, but this made me laugh :D

Anyways, it all really comes down to DM discretion. Some DM's might stick to the bottom-line rule that shield bonuses don't stack, and some might find this a really intriguing class and allow it. Personally, I can see this as kind of a prestige class for the knight or paladin to take; I doubt it would work at the lower levels. Yeah, nothing would hit you, but you would have a hard time generating enough damage to kill the monsters. And typically, at lower levels, DM's throw small groups of enemies out....a fighter or paladin or cleric can tank at lower levels just as easily.

If someone can come up with a balanced progression sheet for this, I might start offering it as a playable class in my games. It sounds pretty cool.

AngelOmnipotent
2009-07-04, 09:14 AM
It's true, Shield Bonuses don't stack. However, there are a lot of nifty things if you want a flavourful fighter and attack with them instead.

Agile Shield Fighter (PHB II) is basically TWF for shields. Improved Shield Bash and a Shield of Bashing with Spikes make a shield bash as if it was 2 catagories larger. So that's 2d6 damage per hand, and you keep your shield AC when hitting with your offhand "weapon". Take the normal TWF line of feats aswell and go to town. Oh and that off-hand heavy steel shield is classed as a light weapon for TWF even with the 2d6 damage.

I'd personally homebrew that if you took a Full Defense action you'd get an extra AC bonus because you've just turned yourself into a spiked ball, also extra damage on a Bull Rush for being a Spiked bulldozer.

I just loved the idea of being a Warforged with shields instead of forearms, and being rather nasty with them.

Glyde
2009-07-04, 09:36 AM
I had an idea for a prestige class that was pretty much a walking wall, allowing shield bonuses to stack. Shield Guardian. I didn't want to copy the construct, but that was the name I chose in the end. Masters of armor and defense. They couldn't be evil (at least to enter and gain levels), and could ad their AC to their allies'. They weren't supposed to be very realistic, but I like the idea.

Admittedly, mine isn't a walking wall... more like a dashing one. It's more focused around actually defending the party members rather than itself. Some of its abilities sacrifice AC in order to intentionally take a hit during combat for somebody else. Its 'capstone' ability allows to intercept almost every action in combat against its party members until it either is nudged into the negatives or runs out of steam. Another adds total attack bonus to AC, and can even fit another medium creature into that and share the AC with them.

Diamondeye
2009-07-04, 10:05 AM
:smallconfused: There's nothing wrong with trying to be a bit silly and attention-getting, so long as it does not significantly get in the way of other things you do; indeed, I'd offer that such people are the majority of what make life enjoyable.

That's fine when it's the character doing it, not the player. Silly, attention-getting players are usually detrimental to everyone else's enjoyment.

Note that I don't mean people who want to joke around, have a good sense of humor, or are just quirky people; that's all fine. I'm talking about people that have a character that fights and engages in other dangerous activities in an ineffective way just to be different. People generally want to engage in lethal combat in ways that are effective, not in ways that serve no purpose other than getting attention.

Now, if there is some abusive way to use 2 shields to become abusivel effective, that's even worse. The cahracter is doing something that should be silly and ineffective from an IC perspective but isn't because of the way some weird combination of mechanics works out. Generally in cases like this it will be a sudden, jarring occurance too when the character gets the 2nd level in the 3rd PrC and the 6th feat he needs to make the combination work.

Teln
2009-07-04, 11:07 AM
Honestly, what's wrong with a little cheese?


...Okay, dumb question, but it's not like he wants to start up Pun-Pun or a Hulking Hurler or the Locate City nuke or something equally broken. And even if it's not broken, as a player he has the right to take up any fighting style he wants. If his character dies, it's his fault.

Eldariel
2009-07-04, 11:17 AM
Honestly, what's wrong with a little cheese?


...Okay, dumb question, but it's not like he wants to start up Pun-Pun or a Hulking Hurler or the Locate City nuke or something equally broken. And even if it's not broken, as a player he has the right to take up any fighting style he wants. If his character dies, it's his fault.

Now I'd just like to know what cheese anyone sees anywhere within 1000 miles of this thread. 'cause I'm hungry.

ericgrau
2009-07-04, 11:36 AM
I was thinking of a possible fighter build that involved, instead of weilding conventional weapons, would just use two spiked shields and he'd go around shield bashing everything. I was looking in the rulebooks to see if this would be allowed - would the two shield bonuses stack, or would it be pointless do do a build like this?

The rules say shield bashes are off-hand attacks and thus face the appropriate penalties. Light shields are light weapons and heavy shields are one-handed weapons.

AstralFire
2009-07-04, 05:59 PM
That's fine when it's the character doing it, not the player. Silly, attention-getting players are usually detrimental to everyone else's enjoyment.

I really can't fathom the way you think. My silly, occasionally attention-grabbing players have almost invariably proven to be the best and most enjoyable roleplayers of the lot. I come in with a certain amount of maturity and kindness expectation for the group, but with a handful of exceptions over the years, my PCs can deliver that at no issue. I wonder how much your group may have missed with this approach of yours.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-05, 01:59 AM
Admittedly, mine isn't a walking wall... more like a dashing one. It's more focused around actually defending the party members rather than itself. Some of its abilities sacrifice AC in order to intentionally take a hit during combat for somebody else. Its 'capstone' ability allows to intercept almost every action in combat against its party members until it either is nudged into the negatives or runs out of steam. Another adds total attack bonus to AC, and can even fit another medium creature into that and share the AC with them.

I wrote up my class with the ability to add their AC to their allies. That's 10+dex+shield+armor+misc. on top of what an ally already has. And with armor mastery, they move at their full speed in any armor, pretty much. They can defend others well. It was one of their original purposes.

Talic
2009-07-05, 03:30 AM
Because they'd get in the way of each other. Yes, I know that they wouldn't according to RAW, but I don't run my games by strictly RAW. If it were a practical way to fight someone else would be doing it. It's just silly.

Moreover, I really don't owe you an explaination for why I don't allow absurd or silly characters in my games, but I'll give you one anyhow: characters built around stuff liek this inevitably cause problems. The player knows its weird and attention getting, and when the novelty of the 2-shield technique or whatever wears off, they're on to some other thing to get attention.

Either that or there's some weird rules exploit they've discovered using this technique and they intend to try to rules-lawyer me into allowing it. Since I take a dim view of rules-lawyering in the first place, I nip it in the bud on the basis of being absurd.

This has to be the most paranoid and absurd view I've ever seen. My basic premises of a D&D game:

1) I am playing with friends.
2) I trust my friends.
3) We're all there to have fun.

Ok, if someone wants to do something a bit crazy and out there, like, say, a Couatl-themed caster, a dragon-themed monk, a sorceror that eventually sprouts dragon wings, or a wizard that eventually turns into a fire elemental? Why not? (note: All of the above exist in D&D. Think about that (or magical lightning-powered grav trains) before you dismiss having two shields as absurd.)

And bottom line, if you feel that your players are trying to slip something by you? Perhaps it's because you have a knee-jerk reaction to the unusual, and automatically lean towards the ban-hammer. If you began working with your players, rather than against them, you may find them more willing to work with you. And thus is a fun game, with trust, formed.

(EDIT: On a side note, as a theoretical Char Op regular, I can tell you that I can't find too much in the way of exploit for this. It can be as effective as a standard 2 handed weapon, and you could likely get a bit more cost effectiveness when enchanting, if you were to discuss it with the DM (ghost touch weapon enhancement... Will it also give benefits of the ghost touch shield enhancement?), but that's something that could be done with 1 shield and no weapon. It has all the strengths and weaknesses of sword and board or 2 weapon fighting, which are regarded as the weaker styles in charop.

So your assumption that it's someone trying to trick you? Unfounded here. It's just someone trying to be creative.)

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 11:33 AM
This has to be the most paranoid and absurd view I've ever seen. My basic premises of a D&D game:

1) I am playing with friends.
2) I trust my friends.
3) We're all there to have fun.

Aside from the fact that your comments about "paranoia and absurdity" are totally unnecessary, not everyone holds your view of the D&D game. I didn't come by my view of how to run things out of the blue; I came by them because people who claim "we're all here to have fun and we're all friends" are the same ones that I've had problems with creating disruptive or abusive characters. We've got years and years of threads here generated by problems people have had playing, generally with people they trust and consider friends. Lots of people have friends that are a downright pain in the butt to play with.

Maybe it would be helpful if you didn't assume that your premises always apply to everyone, or that people are doing something wrong by not holding them.


Ok, if someone wants to do something a bit crazy and out there, like, say, a Couatl-themed caster, a dragon-themed monk, a sorceror that eventually sprouts dragon wings, or a wizard that eventually turns into a fire elemental? Why not? (note: All of the above exist in D&D. Think about that (or magical lightning-powered grav trains) before you dismiss having two shields as absurd.)

Umm.. no.

I won't think about that. All of those things are based on magic, whereas shields are something we're all familiar with from real life. I don't find magical affects absurd

Moreover, why don't you stop telling people you're not playing with to "think about this before dismissing that"?


And bottom line, if you feel that your players are trying to slip something by you? Perhaps it's because you have a knee-jerk reaction to the unusual, and automatically lean towards the ban-hammer. If you began working with your players, rather than against them, you may find them more willing to work with you. And thus is a fun game, with trust, formed.

Perhaps you shoudl stop making wild assumptions about people you really don't know. I don't "automatically lean towards the ban-hammer" nor do I "work against my players" nor do I need to make them any more willing to work with me because we're not having any problems in that regard

I also don't need your condescending advice on how to form "trust" or a "fun game". It's perfectly possible to have a fun game for everyone without allowing in every absurd, childish character concept someone thinks up because they want to seem more clever, more cool, or get some abusive build. You need to stop assuming that because you're hearing something you don't like about how a game is run that there is a problem requiring your advice.

(
EDIT: On a side note, as a theoretical Char Op regular, I can tell you that I can't find too much in the way of exploit for this. It can be as effective as a standard 2 handed weapon, and you could likely get a bit more cost effectiveness when enchanting, if you were to discuss it with the DM (ghost touch weapon enhancement... Will it also give benefits of the ghost touch shield enhancement?), but that's something that could be done with 1 shield and no weapon. It has all the strengths and weaknesses of sword and board or 2 weapon fighting, which are regarded as the weaker styles in charop.

So your assumption that it's someone trying to trick you? Unfounded here. It's just someone trying to be creative.)

MAybe you ought to stop strawmanning my position. I don't assume someone is trying to trick me especially since the OP is not in any game I run. What I said was that if someone did this in my game, I wouldn't allow it because it's absurd which means either someone is engaging in attention-getting behavior or they are trying to abuse some mechanic. While I'm thrilled you haven't found any abuse, and it's entirely possible nothing especially powerful can be done that way, I still don't allow silly characters.

In short, take your condescension elsewhere. My games run just fine with my rules.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 11:41 AM
I really can't fathom the way you think. My silly, occasionally attention-grabbing players have almost invariably proven to be the best and most enjoyable roleplayers of the lot. I come in with a certain amount of maturity and kindness expectation for the group, but with a handful of exceptions over the years, my PCs can deliver that at no issue. I wonder how much your group may have missed with this approach of yours.

I'm really thrilled that works for you but I don't have your players, and I ahve not found attention grabbing sorts, or silly sorts, to be any better at roleplaying.

I don't mind people that like to be silly, and I don't mind characters with silly personalities. When I see a mechanical concept, though, that's just silly, invariably it's simply the player either trying to abuse the rules or get attention. The 2-shield concept isn't one I've seen before, but in other similar instances I've found the entire character's personality revolves around that quirk, and when the quirk is no longer entertaining, the player starts doing other things to regain center stge, including getting the character killed so they can make some new goofball.

It's just as easy for me to sit here and make snide comments like "I wonder how much your other players have missed while silly characters held the spotlight in your games" but that would be rather presumptuous of me to assume wouldn't it? Yes? Then don't assume my players miss anything worthwhile because I don't let anyone hog the spotlight.

AstralFire
2009-07-05, 12:14 PM
If you don't want to invite discussion on your DMing style, then don't bring up your DMing style when it wasn't the point of the thread.

Admiral Squish
2009-07-05, 12:39 PM
Look, guy. Chill. We're not attacking you. We're just saying, the way you talk about it, it seems like you're a little on the strict side of the fence when it comes to DMing, and it seems a tad harsh to say that anything weird or unusual deserves the ban-hammer.

As for weird/odd mechanics, I've seen players who played traditional two-handed fighters become more trouble than the kuo-toa monk with a tongue attack. I, for one, prefer characters who are way out there in my games, because my players know that if they get too crazy with it, then there will be consequences. The very mechanics they use in-game remind this of that, whereas the two-hander had a tendency to quickly forget himself, even when I had to resort to the more invasive methods of DM control.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 02:40 PM
If you don't want to invite discussion on your DMing style, then don't bring up your DMing style when it wasn't the point of the thread.

The man asked for opinons on his idea for a 2-shield fighter. I gave mine in terms of what I;d say if it were my campaign. That doesn't mean everyone else jump all over me for DMing differently from you - THAT is not the point of the thread.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 03:11 PM
Look, guy. Chill. We're not attacking you. We're just saying, the way you talk about it, it seems like you're a little on the strict side of the fence when it comes to DMing, and it seems a tad harsh to say that anything weird or unusual deserves the ban-hammer.

I didn't say "anything weird or unusual" gets the banhammer, I said absurd character concepts that are either strictly attention-gatherers or where I suspect there's an abuse.

There's really no good in-character justification for fighting with 2 shields in my games - and not in any game I ever played in. I'm really pretty lenient on character builds and ideas; there's actually very little that's banned. This idea, however, falls into the class of ideas that no one in the game world would seriously do. I've never seen a game world with fighters that actually do this, and unless you're playing in an OotS style world where characters know their eats and such, the idea that "because I can shield bash" is basically making a character just to metagame.

Anyhow, like I said above, the man wanted opinons. My opinion is that it's silly and I wouldn't allow it. I don't know why so many people feel the need to derail the thread telling me how awful my game is for not allowing things that in my past experience are a problem. Apparently if I go with my direct expereince over conventional wisdom, that's somehow a problem.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-05, 03:16 PM
I <Snip> em.

So suppose a character in your game is in an armory. He has nothing in-hand but there is a healthy supply of weapons & armor he has been granted use of. Perhaps he is part of the military, perhaps someone is just repaying a favor.

Whatever the case he picks up one shield.
Then, he picks up another.

What happens?

Does he explode?
Does the shield become stuck to the table or rack, as if it weighed as much as a thousand suns?
Do you just tell him "No, your character wouldn't do that", take over control away from him and have his character pick up something else?
Do you just laugh and boot him out of the game?

What happens?

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 03:35 PM
So suppose a character in your game is in an armory. He has nothing in-hand but there is a healthy supply of weapons & armor he has been granted use of. Perhaps he is part of the military, perhaps someone is just repaying a favor.

Whatever the case he picks up one shield.
Then, he picks up another.

What happens?

Does he explode?
Does the shield become stuck to the table or rack, as if it weighed as much as a thousand suns?
Do you just tell him "No, your character wouldn't do that", take over control away from him and have his character pick up something else?
Do you just laugh and boot him out of the game?

What happens?

He's holding 2 shields. Come on, this question is a strawman. Picking up 2 shields at the same time is not the same thing as making a habit of fighting with 2 shields at the same time. If that were really a viable way to fight we wouldn't be having this discussion.

In the same vein, if a character were ina situation where nothing else where available but 2 shields I'd have no problem with that - that's not the same thing as building the character around this idea in the first place, which there is really no good reaosn to do aside from saying "hey look at me, I can build a character around something absurd."

If the character started making a habit out of doing this, the player would need to come up with a pretty good explaination of why his character is doing something so ridiculous. Otherwise, yes, he may get booted, because quite frankly, this sort of thing doesn't happen in a vaccuum. The player that does this sort of thing inevitably does it to get attention - negative attention, specifically "hey look guys, I can do something totally pointless!"

I've had this sort of thing (not 2-shield fighters, but silly characters) spoil games in the past, which I've made pretty clear already. Apparently though, "it's been a problem for me in the past so now I do something about it" isn't enough for people to let it lie.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-05, 03:37 PM
He's holding 2 shields. Come on, this question is a strawman. Picking up 2 shields at the same time is not the same thing as making a habit of fighting with 2 shields at the same time. If that were really a viable way to fight we wouldn't be having this discussion.


It's no strawman, I'm just trying to take this step by step. The first step was asking what happens when he holds two shields.

So, I assuming we've established it's OKAY if he has two shields on-hand.

Onto the next step:

He walks outside, still with the two shields. There is a nasty Orc.

He charges the nasty Orc, making a shield bash attack with one of his shields.

What happens?

arguskos
2009-07-05, 03:39 PM
Guys, let's lay off Diamondeye here. I don't agree either, but it's HIS GAME, and he can do as he likes and works for him.

Besides, this thread is rapidly going the way of the flames, and that's not good. Let's all be friends, yah?

Also, @OP: I think you've got more then your fair share of answers about two shields as weapons/defenses.

Myrmex
2009-07-05, 03:39 PM
This makes the rounds every so often... it would be pointless.

Shield bonuses to AC do not stack. Therefore it is in every way inferior to using a weapon and shield combination.

Actually, you just treat it as a TWF build. 1d6 damage isn't much worse than 1d8, and having weapon focus apply to both is an added perk.

Where it really shines is the cheapness you can stack armor/shield enchantments. One could be fortified and one could be spell absorbing or something.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 03:53 PM
It's no strawman, I'm just trying to take this step by step. The first step was asking what happens when he holds two shields.

So, I assuming we've established it's OKAY if he has two shields on-hand.

Onto the next step:

He walks outside, still with the two shields. There is a nasty Orc.

He charges the nasty Orc, making a shield bash attack with one of his shields.

What happens?

Yes, it is a strawman. We're talking about a character built around this idea. I wouldn't allow a character in the first place built like that, and I approve all characters before play, so the situation wouldn't occur where the character would have the 2 shields int he first place because he'd never come into the world.

If you mean some character that wasn't built with this intent, then I'm going to ask the player why his character picked up 2 shields to go fight the orc. If I find out he wante dto play a 2 shield fighter and lied to me about his character concpet because I wouldn't like it, then yes, he's going to be out the door. If it was because the 2 shields were all that was there, that's fine. If it's because his character is suffering from some condition or other then the rest of his play had better be consistent with that.

In other words, there had better be a good in character reason for doing this - and there pretty much isn't going to be in my world. There is no one who fights with 2 shields and therefore no one who teaches it. If it would ahve worked, someone else would have already done it so no, the character cannot invent a 2-shield style. If he does fight with 2 shields in an emergency there's going to be a serious attack penalty.

Yukitsu
2009-07-05, 03:58 PM
How do you deal with spiked chains? From what I've gathered, using a spiked chain is no less ludicrous than using two shields, especially since you can actually use a shield on offense.

Also, how do you deal with bloodstorm blades? They throw anything they are proficient with as a weapon. I used scythes. How do you handle this?

Mr.Moron
2009-07-05, 04:05 PM
Yes, it is a strawman. We're talking about a character built around this idea. I wouldn't allow a character in the first place built like that, and I approve all characters before play, so the situation wouldn't occur where the character would have the 2 shields int he first place because he'd never come into the world.


No special build. Just standard proficiencies.



If you mean some character that wasn't built with this intent, then I'm going to ask the player why his character picked up 2 shields to go fight the orc.


He says it's what is character wanted to do at the time he wanted to see how it would feels. Maybe his character just had a strange "Hunch". Who knows? There are any number of reasons a person might try something strange, even something conventional wisdom advises against.



If I find out he wanted to play a 2 shield fighter and lied to me about his character concpet because I wouldn't like it, then yes, he's going to be out the door. If it was because the 2 shields were all that was there, that's fine. If it's because his character is suffering from some condition or other then the rest of his play had better be consistent with that.


His character concept was a fighter that wasn't explicitly tied to any specific weapon or style. He had no intent to fight with two shields at first, but it came to him.



In other words, there had better be a good in character reason for doing this - and there pretty much isn't going to be in my world. There is no one who fights with 2 shields and therefore no one who teaches it. If it would ahve worked, someone else would have already done it so no, the character cannot invent a 2-shield style. If he does fight with 2 shields in an emergency there's going to be a serious attack penalty.

Let us say he won, despite the attack penalty (lucky rolls, or it was just a weak orc, or he was already just very high level) His character says it was unwieldy but.. he feels some connection to the tactic.

He keeps the shields, and continues to fight that way in spite of the massive attack penalty. Maybe his character isn't sharpest knife in the drawer, or maybe the block is just really superstitious and wants to stick with what defeated that Orc in that circumstance.

It's been another battle or two, maybe even three. He's still fighting with those shields (and probably not doing all that well, attack penalty). However he shows no sign of changing his tactics.

What happens?

VirOath
2009-07-05, 05:29 PM
Well, on the terms of using a Shield offensively and Defensively, or in this case one for each, it comes to Wrestling and Dirtying Fighting (And not the junk on TV either.)

That is, shield use is a complex game with the RL mechanics behind it. You need the right angle to stop or deflect an attack, otherwise you face either being thrown off balance or having your arm break from the force. Not only that, but proper training is using it as a weapon just like any other, one that doesn't need arcing swings and lets you get up close and personal compared to a sword.

But there isn't that big of a leap between Shields as a weapon and using metal gauntlets and armor. Or Armor Spikes for that matter.



Now, for the OP:

Mechanically, it allows for a bit of min/maxing. First and Foremost is that you now can have two sets of Shield Spikes and one set of Armor Spikes. Have these enchanted as high as you can afford with + to Hit and Damage, then tack on Defending.


Defending

A defending weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword’s enhancement bonus to his AC as a bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon’s enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.

Moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, shield or shield of faith; Price +1 bonus.

Emphasis mine.

Now, this will give you upto a +15 AC in flux that you can redirect as needed. Up against a heavy hitter with a low AC (Ex, Giants), pump up your AC. Generally, those Armor Spikes will always be giving an AC bonus, and maybe one shield as well if you don't TWF.

But this setup will be lacking in damage output, and is expensive. But if you can get it to fly with a Dwarf Deepwarden to get Con to AC, as well as wearing really heavy armor, then your AC can hit the sky pretty easily. If you can get buffs before combat (Like Dragonfire Inspiration Bard builds...) then you can be a real threat in damage, but otherwise you need some other mechanic to have things beating on you other than the squishies. And everything is a Squishy compared to you.

Edit:


Umm.. no.

I won't think about that. All of those things are based on magic, whereas shields are something we're all familiar with from real life. I don't find magical affects absurd

Moreover, why don't you stop telling people you're not playing with to "think about this before dismissing that"?


Wait, so the problem is that it is a fighter performing well in combat using two shields, rather than a mechanics problem then. Realism?

So if it was a Wizard that had floating shields with dancing that would attack any opponent that came near, it would be fine because it was magic?

Just asking, but are you one of those DM's that feels that something that magic can do should never be replicated in a martial way?

How do feel about the Rogue's Sneak Attack?

Just trying to get a better picture on your viewpoint on this.

Quietus
2009-07-05, 05:43 PM
What's the major difference in concept between having a shield in one hand and a spear in the other (long, unweildy weapon that can only stab forwards, but perfectly viable by D&D standards), and say a tower shield in one hand and a heavy shield (masterwork, built to be longer rather than taller) in the other? Sure, the shield is more heavy than the spear, but it's not nearly as awkward; If you're using a tower shield as your actual "Shield", and grab Improved Shield Bash, sure, you get more AC than you would normally - but you're spending feat resources on it. And you're essentially going "Board and board", which is typically seen as unoptimized.

Mechanically, there's no real reason to say no - they've spent feats to do this, and sure, their AC is a little higher.. but their damage is lower. And I could very easily see someone with a tower shield on one arm and ANY one-handed weapon in the other. Hell, for gladitorial combat, the shield would probably be easier to maneuver than a spear. The only real problem would be the sheer weight, which is why you don't see it done in the real world - but D&D characters are well above your average real-world human's strength, so why wouldn't they take advantage of that?

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 06:10 PM
No special build. Just standard proficiencies.
Ok let me make this as clear as the English language allows:

When I checked his character sheet at the beginning of the game, I'd ask why he was carrying 2 shields, sicne something like that would catch my attention even if this thread never happened. If his answer was "So I can fight with 2 shields at once" my answer would be "You need to re-think that unless you can come up with a truely brilliant explaination of why your character would do that - and oh by the way, you are not getting 2 sets of shield enchantments regardless".


He says it's what is character wanted to do at the time he wanted to see how it would feels. Maybe his character just had a strange "Hunch". Who knows? There are any number of reasons a person might try something strange, even something conventional wisdom advises against.

Then my answer to him would be "explain why your character had this sudden hankering/hunch/"who knows" etc/ to take his life in his hands by confronting an orc with an improvised weapon when other alternatives would be available.

The answer to that had better be a LOT better than a "hunch" or a "feeling" or "Who knows" which are all just ways of saying "there really is no good reason for someone to do this in mortal combat but I can't think of any so I'll jsut say there's 'any number' of them".


His character concept was a fighter that wasn't explicitly tied to any specific weapon or style. He had no intent to fight with two shields at first, but it came to him.

No. It didn't come to him. If it actually worked, someone else somewhere in the world would have invented it. I have never seen, in any campaign world, fantasy novel, movie, or RL account, somneone doing this. Unlike magic where "well it;s magic!" works, shields do exist in real life and no one does this, nor does anyone in the campaign world.

This is the player abusing the lack of a rule to impose truly appropriate penalties on such absurd fighting, which are not there because no one at WotC ever thought someone would try to do that. In fact, it's so ridiculous this is the first time I've ever heard anyone actually propose the idea.


Let us say he won, despite the attack penalty (lucky rolls, or it was just a weak orc, or he was already just very high level) His character says it was unwieldy but.. he feels some connection to the tactic.

Now we're really getting absurd. A character feels a "connection" to a tactic despite taking massive penalties for it being unweildy and used in a manner he isn't trained for?

That's what we call "metagaming". The character has no real reason to feel this connection, based on the awkwardness and unweildiness of the 2 shields during the fight? No, he doesn't, no matter what his player says. This is just the player doing something bizarre for the sake of being bizarre, and matagaming obviously to do it.

He keeps the shields, and continues to fight that way in spite of the massive attack penalty. Maybe his character isn't sharpest knife in the drawer, or maybe the block is just really superstitious and wants to stick with what defeated that Orc in that circumstance.


It's been another battle or two, maybe even three. He's still fighting with those shields (and probably not doing all that well, attack penalty). However he shows no sign of changing his tactics.

What happens?

None of this ever happens. He never gets to the second or third fight because if he really insists on this metagame "it just feels right despite massive penalties" nonsense then the answer is "your character is suffering from serious mental breakdown and is now an NPC. Roll a new one - and if this one wants to fight with 2 shields, you're done. You know we have a rule here about being adults. Adults do not claim their character likes a certain fighting style over others that they're better at just so they can show off by doing something bizarre."

Mr.Moron
2009-07-05, 06:31 PM
<snip>....

None of this ever happens. He never gets to the second or third fight because if he really insists on this metagame "it just feels right despite massive penalties" nonsense then the answer is "your character is suffering from serious mental breakdown and is now an NPC. Roll a new one - and if this one wants to fight with 2 shields, you're done. You know we have a rule here about being adults. Adults do not claim their character likes a certain fighting style over others that they're better at just so they can show off by doing something bizarre."



Well, I think with this post your stance is clarified enough that my curiosity is satisfied. You've done a very a good job of explaining exactly what your position is.

Keld Denar
2009-07-05, 06:42 PM
Roll a new one - and if this one wants to fight with 2 shields, you're done. You know we have a rule here about being adults. Adults do not claim their character likes a certain fighting style over others that they're better at just so they can show off by doing something bizarre."

So, I'm guessing you don't let straight fighter20s duel wield? Since, even without feats, they are better at wielding a 2handed weapon than pair of 1handed weapons they have feats for? Because that is exactly what you are saying. I have a character who uses a net. Its not his primary weapon, but he often pulls it out when its tactically wise. Regardless, hes not nearly as good with his net as he is with this longsword. He still loves using his net, despite the -4 non-proficiency penalty.

I mean, with all due respect, you are being a little over the top with the whole banhammer. Is duelwielding shields absurd? Slightly. Is it more absurd than wielding a spiked chain? Maybe, maybe not. Is it more absurd than wielding an oversized greatsword? Maybe, maybe not. Is it more absurd than a character who can standing longjump 25 feet? Hardly. All are non-magical things a character can do in a given game, and none of them are hit with the banhammer, are they?

awa
2009-07-05, 07:32 PM
Iron heroes an alternate players handbook has feats that allow you to use two shields at the same time. If you wanted you could probably convert it back to 3.5 it might not be optimal but sometimes if your more interested in playing a fun charecter then a powerful one that's okay.

P.s. Just to preempt somethings i'm not saying strong characters can't be fun.
The question had nothing to do with the practicality or historical accuracy of using two shields so i did not address them

Hat-Trick
2009-07-05, 07:38 PM
None of this ever happens. He never gets to the second or third fight because if he really insists on this metagame "it just feels right despite massive penalties" nonsense then the answer is "your character is suffering from serious mental breakdown and is now an NPC. Roll a new one - and if this one wants to fight with 2 shields, you're done. You know we have a rule here about being adults. Adults do not claim their character likes a certain fighting style over others that they're better at just so they can show off by doing something bizarre."

I don't find it bizarre at all. Using two shields, while not necessarily very effective, has it's merits. Even if he has those negatives you put on him, he could use them to protect the rest of the party in a narrow corridor, which works much better out of Dnd than in. In Dnd, shields are negligible for the most part. A +2 to AC is very underwhelming, heck +7 when the thing's fully enchanted is underwhelming, mostly from the cost.

If you want a bizarre idea, wait till you see a warforged with 'armor' spikes launched out of a cannon. THAT'S bizarre, unrealistic, and slightly confusing to describe mechanically. Fortunately for my friend who thought of that, I like to invoke Rule of Cool.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 07:46 PM
So, I'm guessing you don't let straight fighter20s duel wield? Since, even without feats, they are better at wielding a 2handed weapon than pair of 1handed weapons they have feats for? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

No, it isn't what I'm saying. Dual wielding isn't bizarre or silly. All you're doing is strawmanning.


I have a character who uses a net. Its not his primary weapon, but he often pulls it out when its tactically wise. Regardless, hes not nearly as good with his net as he is with this longsword. He still loves using his net, despite the -4 non-proficiency penalty.

So... because you can use a net in your campaign I have to allow 2 shield fighters in mine in order to satisfy the greater D&D consistency of the world?



I mean, with all due respect, you are being a little over the top with the whole banhammer.

No, I'm not being at all over the top with the banhammer. What's absurd is for you to say this with no idea what my game is actually like - and since my players don't seem to ahve a problem with it, you're really in no position to either. I mean really, all I'm getting is "ZOMG no 2 shield fighters! How can you be so restrictive!"

I had no idea they were such a critical element of character developmentt.


Is duelwielding shields absurd? Slightly. Is it more absurd than wielding a spiked chain? Maybe, maybe not. Is it more absurd than wielding an oversized greatsword? Maybe, maybe not. Is it more absurd than a character who can standing longjump 25 feet? Hardly. All are non-magical things a character can do in a given game, and none of them are hit with the banhammer, are they?[/QUOTE]


Ahh, the old "if you allow anything the least bit abusrd you must allow anything no matter how ridiculous it might be". I mean really, do you understand how this sounds? "ZOMG DE doesn't allow 2-shield fighters! How could anyone stand to play in a campaign so restrictive you can't use 2 shields to fight with at once!"

You're using 2 different definitions of absurd there; it's not unlike the old "Nothing is better than God, a cheeseburger is better than nothing therefore a cheeseburger is better than God" trick. Absurd in all your other examples about chains, greatswords and longjumps is a synonym for difficult; in the 2-shield sense it's silly.

All you're really saying here is "you're being inconsistent based on my subjective assesment of what is and isn't absurd". Well, guess what? I'm not DMing for you, so that's meaningless. It's fun for my players and me, and keeps my games on an even keel. My standard of what's absurd and what isn't is the only one that matters in my games.

Diamondeye
2009-07-05, 07:49 PM
I don't find it bizarre at all. Using two shields, while not necessarily very effective, has it's merits. Even if he has those negatives you put on him, he could use them to protect the rest of the party in a narrow corridor, which works much better out of Dnd than in. In Dnd, shields are negligible for the most part. A +2 to AC is very underwhelming, heck +7 when the thing's fully enchanted is underwhelming, mostly from the cost.

If it weren't bizarre and silly, there would be 2-shield fighters in real life... and no, some obscure example is not going to convince me in the face of the overwhelming number of fighters NOT using 2 shields.


If you want a bizarre idea, wait till you see a warforged with 'armor' spikes launched out of a cannon. THAT'S bizarre, unrealistic, and slightly confusing to describe mechanically. Fortunately for my friend who thought of that, I like to invoke Rule of Cool.

I wouldn't allow that either because there's no warforged in my world either.

Keld Denar
2009-07-05, 07:53 PM
a cheeseburger is better than nothing

I dunno, I've had some incredible good cheeseburgers in my life...

Regardless of your discriminatory view of cheeseburgers, I'm not gonna argue anymore. It was more of a curiosity on my part, anyway.

Magnema
2009-07-05, 07:53 PM
I was thinking of making a weapon style feat for this. Here goes. PEACH

Dual shield wielder [Style]
Prerequisites

Int 13, Dex 15, Combat Expertise, Improved shield bash, Two Weapon Fighting, Two Weapon Defense

Benefit

Shield bonuses of shields held in each hand stack with each other, as well as with any bonus granted by two weapon defense. Shield bonuses only stack between the shield you're wielding in each hand and your two weapon defense feat. It does not count other bonuses (such as the shield spell.)

I was thinking of this thanks to Twilight Princess. Oh, and for the person who said they'd get in each other's way, check that out:smallwink:


I was thinking a BAB requirement, then figures that base attack bonus didn't really apply to a defensive feat.

AstralFire
2009-07-05, 07:53 PM
There also aren't spiked chain wielders IRL, as has been said. A number of the exotic weapons and fighting styles aren't quite sensical.

I don't think continuing this argument is going to be particularly productive though (yeah yeah, pot and kettle, I'm part of what started it, but I didn't expect it to last this long.)

Iku Rex
2009-07-05, 09:14 PM
I have never seen, in any campaign world, fantasy novel, movie, or RL account, somneone doing this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RhZiegns9o (whole fight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05RK8xZaYY#t=2m50s (watch for about 30 seconds)

cfalcon
2009-07-05, 09:44 PM
Explain why a person can't wield two shields, one for defense and one for hitting things?

Because this doesn't actually work. Like, with shields. In the world.

Quietus
2009-07-05, 10:10 PM
No, it isn't what I'm saying. Dual wielding isn't bizarre or silly. All you're doing is strawmanning.

What they mean is that from an in-game perspective, the mechanics make it so that two weapon fighting is massively inferior to two handed weapons, assuming you have the strength to be in melee anyway. Thus, TWF = bizarre and silly, from an in-game standpoint. His question was : "Why would anyone choose to TWF when THF is so much better?", in response to your "Why would anyone choose to fight with two shields, when shield + longsword is so much better?"

To be fair, without your houseruled penalties, the difference between two large shields and a large shield/longsword ... is that one has a heavier "weapon". That's all.

That being said, I could very easily see someone fighting with two shields. As noted, the biggest reason people DON'T in the real world is that shields are heavier than more typical weaponry. But in the real world, 18 strength is ... herculean. In D&D? It's expected. They have the extra strength to use two shields, why wouldn't they, if they happened to have two that worked really well together?


Also, from a curiosity point : I have a character who uses a large spiked bashing shield as his primary weapon, sometimes doing TWF with armor spikes, sometimes fighting with the sheild two handed (putting his whole body behind the blow, or grabbing a non-spiked edge as he slams it home). Would that be disallowed in your world as well?

Admiral Squish
2009-07-05, 10:15 PM
No, it isn't what I'm saying. Dual wielding isn't bizarre or silly. All you're doing is strawmanning.

Have you ever tried to be any kind of coordinated with two three-foot long blades weighting upwards of ten-fifteen pounds? It's pretty ridiculous to assume anyone would be able to do that and fight well. Let alone with the grace so oft portrayed.


So... because you can use a net in your campaign I have to allow 2 shield fighters in mine in order to satisfy the greater D&D consistency of the world?

That's hardly what he said. He proposed a reasonable parallel. A net is an inefficient, rarely-used, and generally, unintelligent gameplay choice. But he does it anyway, because he likes it. The same would apply to a shield fighter.


No, I'm not being at all over the top with the banhammer. What's absurd is for you to say this with no idea what my game is actually like - and since my players don't seem to ahve a problem with it, you're really in no position to either. I mean really, all I'm getting is "ZOMG no 2 shield fighters! How can you be so restrictive!"

I had no idea they were such a critical element of character development.

Guy. Calm. Down. There is no reason to get this angry over an internet spat. I'm trying to have a reasonable argument. Your players can be fine with it. That's cool with me. However, because they're happy with the status quo doesn't mean you shouldn't try to experiment. Maybe someone's always wanted to play a two-shield fighter and never put it up because he knew it'd get swatted down.


Ahh, the old "if you allow anything the least bit abusrd you must allow anything no matter how ridiculous it might be". I mean really, do you understand how this sounds? "ZOMG DE doesn't allow 2-shield fighters! How could anyone stand to play in a campaign so restrictive you can't use 2 shields to fight with at once!"

You're using 2 different definitions of absurd there; it's not unlike the old "Nothing is better than God, a cheeseburger is better than nothing therefore a cheeseburger is better than God" trick. Absurd in all your other examples about chains, great swords and long jumps is a synonym for difficult; in the 2-shield sense it's silly.

All you're really saying here is "you're being inconsistent based on my subjective assessment of what is and isn't absurd". Well, guess what? I'm not DMing for you, so that's meaningless. It's fun for my players and me, and keeps my games on an even keel. My standard of what's absurd and what isn't is the only one that matters in my games.

Like I've mentioned before. Two-weapon fighting is really, really awkward and generally ineffective. A spiked chain is virtually impossible to wield, even in a training environment, let alone a full-on combat situation. If given a choice between two spiked shields and a spiked chain in a real combat situation, really, I'd go with the shields.

I don't think anyone's tryong to pull the wool over yor eyes or anything. We're just saying that realistically, a lot of things in the D&D world that are considered 'normal' are not only 'absurd' but 'impossible' in the real world. That's why we play D&D. How realistic is it to be able to kill an ogre single-handedly? It's not. We call this 'suspension of disbelief'. When everyone at the table agrees that yes, we're about to sit around a table for a few hours and pretend to be elves and wizards and warriors in a world that never will and never has existed and shows only the most vague of resemblances to the world we live in, and we're going to go with that because the fantasy's a fun one. Can you cast spells? No. That's why we play D&D. Because we want to do things that wouldn't, even couldn't in the real world. It's a silly hobby.

cfalcon
2009-07-05, 11:30 PM
Have you ever tried to be any kind of coordinated with two three-foot long blades weighting upwards of ten-fifteen pounds?

Swords are not that heavy.


Maybe someone's always wanted to play a two-shield fighter and never put it up because he knew it'd get swatted down.

Maybe there's no damned such thing as a two shield fighter lol. I mean, come on.



Like I've mentioned before. Two-weapon fighting is really, really awkward and generally ineffective.

I'm puzzled as to whether you mean in game or IRL. In game, the rules could probably be written better, but IRL it was uncommon but not unseen.


A spiked chain is virtually impossible to wield, even in a training environment, let alone a full-on combat situation.

A spiked chain doesn't even exist :P



If given a choice between two spiked shields and a spiked chain in a real combat situation, really, I'd go with the shields.

I would too, actually. Wielding a "spiked chain" is done in game with both hands because you have to actually control the weapon- if some feat allows you to wield it one handed, then it's the same logical level as wielding a bow one handed.


We're just saying that realistically, a lot of things in the D&D world that are considered 'normal' are not only 'absurd' but 'impossible' in the real world.

These things are tagged that way though. A spell is for sure a spell- it's supposed to be a departure from reality. Swords are supposed to be swords. They aren't a departure from reality.


It's a silly hobby.

I've never thought it was silly.

Admiral Squish
2009-07-05, 11:49 PM
Swords are not that heavy.
Yeah they are. Maybe Im just looking at the wrong ones or something, but I've definitely seen blades designed for one hand upwards of fifteen pounds.



Maybe there's no damned such thing as a two shield fighter lol. I mean, come on.

That's the point. THERE IS NO TWO SHIELD FIGHTER. I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THERE WAS. But, what says it wouldn't be fun to try?


I'm puzzled as to whether you mean in game or IRL. In game, the rules could probably be written better, but IRL it was uncommon but not unseen.

IRL. Most soldiers preferred sword and board, the ones who weren't cavalry, at least. In fact, that's how nearly every army was trained to fight. Dual-wielding was never a widely-trained art, and really only works in one-on-one combat.


A spiked chain doesn't even exist :P

Not as depicted, no. But weighted chains did see some use in Asian martial arts, and are nigh-impossible to use in any sustained combat. Usually, they were designed to disarm or disable an opponent to make them eaqsy prey fro whatever other weapon you had.


I would too, actually. Wielding a "spiked chain" is done in game with both hands because you have to actually control the weapon- if some feat allows you to wield it one handed, then it's the same logical level as wielding a bow one handed.

Even two-handed, weighted chains are very, very unwieldy.


These things are tagged that way though. A spell is for sure a spell- it's supposed to be a departure from reality. Swords are supposed to be swords. They aren't a departure from reality.

...Until you have them light on fire and such. Or start dual-wielding bastard swords. You can get plenty unrealistic without ever touching a spellbook.


I've never thought it was silly.

Grown men pretend to be wizards. It's pretty silly. Why do you think we're so often ridiculed? It's silly, we just don't care.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-07-05, 11:50 PM
These things are tagged that way though. A spell is for sure a spell- it's supposed to be a departure from reality. Swords are supposed to be swords. They aren't a departure from reality.Jump checks are based in reality, and yet a Barbarian can easily beat the long jump world record 60% of the time by 3rd level. Falling from orbit is generally survivable by any 10th level d12 character with a decent Con(read:12). Purely mundane, the D&D rules break down past about level 5. Why are you worried about something that isn't abusable?

Backstory to justify TSF(2-shield fighting): Character is surrounded by orcs. Character kills orcs. Orcs sunder character's dual ancestreal shortswords. Character grabs the first things he can off the ground to use as weapons. Character is surprised to find himself holding 2 orcish shields. Character can't waste any more time looking for decent weapons, so character fights with them. Character is surprisingly effective with 2 shields. Character keeps doing it because it worked once. (And if you don't think he would, keep in mind how many gamblers have a lucky shirt, or how many RPers put the 20s up when setting down their dice)

Quietus
2009-07-05, 11:56 PM
Maybe there's no damned such thing as a two shield fighter lol. I mean, come on.

No such thing as a Dwarf in the real world either. Or spellcasting. Doesn't stop those, though, does it? And as noted :



A spiked chain doesn't even exist :P

Spiked chains don't exist, but we use them in-game. Why couldn't we use two shields in-game? Those DO exist in the real world, that's a step up from the chain IMO.



I would too, actually. Wielding a "spiked chain" is done in game with both hands because you have to actually control the weapon- if some feat allows you to wield it one handed, then it's the same logical level as wielding a bow one handed.

Undersized spiked chain could be weilded one-handed. Hell, you could take Monkey Grip, Two Weapon Fighting, and Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, weilding two small-sized spiked chains at a time, at -4 to attack rolls. Not so bad if you throw in Combat Expertise and Improved Trip though..




These things are tagged that way though. A spell is for sure a spell- it's supposed to be a departure from reality. Swords are supposed to be swords. They aren't a departure from reality.

Everything about D&D is a departure from reality. We play games, generally speaking, to pretend to be something we'll never be in our lives. I'll never be a greatsword-weilding viking, or a fireball-throwing sorcerer. I play D&D so I can explore these aspects. If I want to play a character who is so incredibly over-obsessed with defense he wants to put as many walls between himself and the opponent as possible.. what's so bad about that?

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 01:44 AM
Yeah they are. Maybe Im just looking at the wrong ones or something, but I've definitely seen blades designed for one hand upwards of fifteen pounds.

I'm 100% sure you are wrong.
http://www.thearma.org/ would be a good place to start some research. Not even two handed swords were that heavy.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html


That's the point. THERE IS NO TWO SHIELD FIGHTER. I HAVE NEVER ARGUED THERE WAS. But, what says it wouldn't be fun to try?

I guess I just don't understand this. I mean, how about a fighter who wields like, giant mittens? That would be fun too.



...Until you have them light on fire and such.

It is not difficult to extrapolate what would happen with a sword that launches small bolts of flame. You aren't guaranteed to be right, but it's not totally out there. Note also that if the game is designed right, you don't launch small bolts of flame without some non-mundane ability going on.


Or start dual-wielding bastard swords.

Unless you use some crazy feats, that delivers some serious penalties- of the order that you would be better off NOT dual wielding bastard swords. Additionally, that WOULD be a fighting method- just presumably a terrible one.


You can get plenty unrealistic without ever touching a spellbook.

Again, pre-existing flaws in the game are not a great reason to think of more.



Grown men pretend to be wizards. It's pretty silly. Why do you think we're so often ridiculed? It's silly, we just don't care.

Grown men pretend to be 19 year old college football stars too, but that doesn't make that silly either- art is art. Ours is better because we all get to add to it.



Jump checks are based in reality, and yet a Barbarian can easily beat the long jump world record 60% of the time by 3rd level.


That's probably a good argument to change the Jump table, if anything. Do note that as you gain more ability to jump, you don't normally gain the ability to jump any further than the 30 feet (obviously chosen based on the aforementioned world record). And note that the 3rd level barbarian won't be tying the world record each time.

If you do view it as valid, you are assuming that character levels definitely add mastery over the natural world that is in excess of what you would normally see- but not by much. The 30 foot long jump exceeds the 29.whatever that is the current world record, but it's not like you can get a 50 foot mundane jump, or even a 35 foot one by the book.

[qoute]Falling from orbit is generally survivable by any 10th level d12 character with a decent Con[/quote]

Well, not from orbit, but certainly from very high. There are experienced skydivers who have fallen from absurd heights when their chutes fail to open and survived, though I would agree with the assessment that it's too easy to fall from great heights in D&D, I would still say that a problem with the system mapping to reality should be either fixed or tolerated, not used as a justification for some double shield punch dude.


Orcs sunder character's dual ancestreal shortswords.

Don't even get me started on sunder lol....


Character is surprisingly effective with 2 shields.

By the rules, he probably should not be. Nor should he be more effective than if he actually was wielding a non-shield mainhand.


No such thing as a Dwarf in the real world either.

Dwarves, unlike shields and swords, are not meant to represent reality. They represent the fantasy portion. A mundane shield or sword does not. I explained this already though.


Spiked chains don't exist, but we use them in-game. Why couldn't we use two shields in-game?

The spiked chain has a tenuous claim on reality, in that there are some weapons that are vaguely similar to it. I don't really think it should be used in the game- I tolerated it for years because of the unique mechanical option it added for the players, but no more. I'm much happier giving the "reach and not reach" ability to some weapon that actually existed, even if I can't make it mechanically quite as pleasing as the spiked chain.

Note that I'd be fine with a *magical* chain that acted like a spiked chain- it then has a mechanism to break the laws of reality. The whole POINT of mundane items is that they are supposed to be mundane, and ground the game in reality, which the dwarves and spellcasting and magical flaming greatswords serve to actually be magical in.



Those DO exist in the real world, that's a step up from the chain IMO.

You can't make the case that no one thought to fight with two shields, or ever tried it. It's full on insulting to generations of warriors across many cultures, most of whom had access to shields and a myriad of weapons. None of them, not even in gladiatorial combat (that I can find a reference to at least) even opted for two shields- and if anyone DID try it, it clearly didn't catch on.

And someone MUST have experimented with it. So we can say with some authority that it's bunk.

What I think is a little bit silly is that the more helpful folks in this thread, having noted that the rules are actually correct in not supporting the double shield dude, try to propose feats and such to make it work. That puzzles me.



Monkey Grip, Two Weapon Fighting, and Oversized Two Weapon Fighting, weilding two small-sized spiked chains at a time, at -4 to attack rolls

Right, but clearly it's a rules oversight if something that works they way the spiked chain is described can be used with one hand in that fashion. But it's really just another great argument against the spiked chain.


Everything about D&D is a departure from reality.

I'm sorry you feel that way- the game clearly goes through some efforts to be grounded in reality, and then has certain effects that break those rules.


If I want to play a character who is so incredibly over-obsessed with defense he wants to put as many walls between himself and the opponent as possible.. what's so bad about that?

That doesn't sound like a character concept, it sounds like a neurosis! Such a philosophy would, I suspect, encourage you to wield both some manner of shield and some weapon that can be used to encourage foes to stay away from you. Wielding two shields is just not a realistic option. Why not create a character class that has a shield, a sword, and some magical energy shields that he guides with his mind? You'd have to bend the rules substantially anyway, why not do it in a way that uses the tools we WERE given to change and stand apart from the mundane?

Hat-Trick
2009-07-06, 02:05 AM
We were given two shield. That's what we're using.

Quietus
2009-07-06, 02:09 AM
Dwarves, unlike shields and swords, are not meant to represent reality. They represent the fantasy portion. A mundane shield or sword does not. I explained this already though.



I'm sorry you feel that way- the game clearly goes through some efforts to be grounded in reality, and then has certain effects that break those rules.

The entire game represents fantasy. Is it based in the real world? Certainly. It HAS to be, for us to relate to it. But take even "mundane" things like Barbarian rage; +4 to strength and con? Really? That's not even remotely proportional to someone in the real world, that +4 strength is a HUGE increase compared to what any average person is currently capable of. Exceptionally strong individuals (14 strength) don't become olympian in strength (18) just because they got angry. The kind of anger that would require would also involve an immediate heart attack. Sure, the game represents reality - but in a fantastic, over-the-top way. It isn't *meant* to have mundane classes restricted to what average joe in the real world can do; That's not nearly as fun as having a spiked-chain weilder doing a leap attack charge for massive damage.




You can't make the case that no one thought to fight with two shields, or ever tried it. It's full on insulting to generations of warriors across many cultures, most of whom had access to shields and a myriad of weapons. None of them, not even in gladiatorial combat (that I can find a reference to at least) even opted for two shields- and if anyone DID try it, it clearly didn't catch on.

And someone MUST have experimented with it. So we can say with some authority that it's bunk.

You can't make the case that no one's thought of it and turned it down, either. How is having a shield in one hand and a hammer in the other any different from having a shield in one hand and a shield in the other, using that second shield to hit things? You get a broader striking surface, and a great deal more weight; That weight, in my opinion, is the greatest drawback. Represented in D&D by shields being heavier than regular weapons; If your player has enough strength to lift them, however, *why not let them use that*? It doesn't give them a mechanical advantage in any way, it just lets them stand out.




What I think is a little bit silly is that the more helpful folks in this thread, having noted that the rules are actually correct in not supporting the double shield dude, try to propose feats and such to make it work. That puzzles me.

They understand that the game exists to let those playing have fun. If someone wants to use two shields, why not support that? It's a fun, fantastic (in the fantasy sense of the word) idea.




That doesn't sound like a character concept, it sounds like a neurosis! Such a philosophy would, I suspect, encourage you to wield both some manner of shield and some weapon that can be used to encourage foes to stay away from you. Wielding two shields is just not a realistic option. Why not create a character class that has a shield, a sword, and some magical energy shields that he guides with his mind? You'd have to bend the rules substantially anyway, why not do it in a way that uses the tools we WERE given to change and stand apart from the mundane?

There's no weapon in D&D that actively encourages others to stay away from you, though. No weapon allows you to use bull rushes with it. So instead, you turtle.

As for "magic energy shields"; For one, this isn't about stacking AC. Shield bonuses don't stack, whether it's because I have a pair of Heavy Shields, or because I have a Heavy Shield, a longsword, and a Shield spell. For two, why should my character need to give up interesting flavor I wanted to give him, jump through many, many hoops to combine spellcasting with melee abilities, when I could just strap a second shield on and go to town? My way, I take on heavier gear for no mechanical change. Your way, I have to screw around with class levels, caster levels, and base attack in order to make my character work.

Talic
2009-07-06, 02:45 AM
Aside from the fact that your comments about "paranoia and absurdity" are totally unnecessary, not everyone holds your view of the D&D game. I didn't come by my view of how to run things out of the blue; I came by them because people who claim "we're all here to have fun and we're all friends" are the same ones that I've had problems with creating disruptive or abusive characters. We've got years and years of threads here generated by problems people have had playing, generally with people they trust and consider friends. Lots of people have friends that are a downright pain in the butt to play with.I've restricted my opinions to those of your views. Everything here is unneccesary. It's a valid point for me to criticize your views, wherein you don't even know how someone's going to be disruptive, or if they're going to be disruptive. You assume that if it's something out of the ordinary, they're either novelty chasing, or they're trying to be evil evil rules lawyers, and so don't even consider it (by your own statements). That's an assumption that I find paranoid and closed-minded.


Maybe it would be helpful if you didn't assume that your premises always apply to everyone, or that people are doing something wrong by not holding them.I'm not. On the flip side, I've DM'd for going on 15 years. I've had my fair share of problem players. And I've distilled D&D down to a few basic common things. Fun is the foremost. If someone finds novel concepts fun, I'm not going to deny them that. Not everyone has fun the same way. So a good DM has the challenge and opportunity to bring several different people together, and craft a game where everyone gets to enjoy what they love most. Denying the less-serious player the opportunity to cut loose a little, on the grounds that you think it's silly? Perhaps that's exactly the point. Perhaps he grinds out numbers and listens to whining people on the phone all day at work, and just wants to be able to blow off steam and be a bit silly. People have all sorts of motivations for doing what they do, and you'll never know what they are unless you spend the time to learn the group.

And if people are being intentionally disruptive? As a DM, there are a number of tools to handle that.

I won't think about that. All of those things are based on magic, whereas shields are something we're all familiar with from real life. I don't find magical affects absurdMan-eating Treasure chests? Bears with Owl heads? Turning your hated foes into Tapioca Pudding?

Moreover, why don't you stop telling people you're not playing with to "think about this before dismissing that"? Perhaps you should stop telling me what I should stop telling people then, hmm? I only point out that D&D has plenty of room for the absurd. Just because it's silly doesn't mean it doesn't have a place along all the other crazy crap that WotC has stuffed in a monster manual or list of spells.

Perhaps you shoudl stop making wild assumptions about people you really don't know. I don't "automatically lean towards the ban-hammer" nor do I "work against my players" nor do I need to make them any more willing to work with me because we're not having any problems in that regardReally? You told us here that you'd ban two shield style, because you think it's absurd, and even if it wasn't, you'd do it because someone doing it is either someone seeking novelty or trying to break the rules, and so you'd ban it. Not that you'd hear your player out, or ask what he's trying to do. You'd summarily ban it. I only use what you've told me. And I feel it almost can go without saying that telling other people what they can't tell you is not the most stable platform. After all, in doing it, you're doing exactly what you're telling me not to.

I also don't need your condescending advice on how to form "trust" or a "fun game". It's perfectly possible to have a fun game for everyone without allowing in every absurd, childish character concept someone thinks up because they want to seem more clever, more cool, or get some abusive build. You need to stop assuming that because you're hearing something you don't like about how a game is run that there is a problem requiring your advice.And you could probably do without thinking that everyone trying to play a concept that you think is different is trying to showboat or abuse the system. I've played many concepts that were mechanically weak, because I liked them and they were different. And tell me, exactly what is wrong with being a little silly when playing a game? This isn't a sacred temple or a religion. It's a way to have fun. That's it. And it is what you make it. Your audience is your players, and their way of giving you a bad review is voting with their feet. Yes, the DM has control, until the players choose to walk. This is why it's good to work with players. Knowing more makes it better for everyone. If you find that view condescending or rude, well, I'm sorry you think that. But it's my view, and the beauty of the internet is that when you post something publicly, you should be accepting of honest praise, as well as honest critique.

And my view is that one of the hallmarks of a mediator is mediation. Communication is key for that, and disallowing certain concepts just because you think they're silly? That's poor mediation. A mediator tries to see things from everyone's point of view. They're supposed to be in a position of authority because they can take 4 different players, and one world, and turn it into something that everyone wanted. That's the hallmark of a good DM. And part of giving the players what they want? Is listening to what they want, and being open to new ideas.


MAybe you ought to stop strawmanning my position. I don't assume someone is trying to trick me especially since the OP is not in any game I run. What I said was that if someone did this in my game, I wouldn't allow it because it's absurd which means either someone is engaging in attention-getting behavior or they are trying to abuse some mechanic. While I'm thrilled you haven't found any abuse, and it's entirely possible nothing especially powerful can be done that way, I still don't allow silly characters.I'm not. Though I'd appreciate it if you spent more time making your points, and less time telling me what I can and can't say.

Though just because you believe it's absurd (a matter of opinion) doesn't mean that someone's trying for attention, or abusing. I could make an entirely ordinary wizard that spent half his time using Polymorph Any Object to turn chickens to commoners and commoners to chickens. Not absurd, by the earlier stated position of yours that magical effects are not absurd. But it's all about attention-getting.

Besides, what's wrong with attention-getting? Is it bad for players acting out roles to want the spotlight? Really?


In short, take your condescension elsewhere. My games run just fine with my rules.Then keep your rules in your games. If you post your views on the internet, be prepared for honest evaluation. You talk about the OP's views, but deride others from talking about yours, when they're both publically posted for the world to see. In short, I'm kinda finding your tone abrasive, if not outright rude. There's plenty of room for honest, open, friendly discussion without the posturing. If you don't want to hear my responses, then don't respond to my views. That's your right. If someone takes the time to respond to me, I try to respond to that. That's mine.

No matter how much you tell me what I "Maybe shouldn't say", it's not going to influence what I do say. I'll treat you with respect, but if you put forth a view publically, and I find a disagreement with it? I'll say as much. I expect no more, and no less, from anyone else.

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 03:13 AM
You'd summarily ban it.

I would too, it doesn't make any sense. Why not four sword style? You hold two swords in each hand and go from there! Or maybe strap daggers to your feet and cast fly! After all, anything pointy you can swing gets an attack roll right?

If you run games where the rules of the reality are able to bent to such a degree, honestly, that's kind of cool. But you can't expect that to be the standard.

Looking over the core rules, it seems that you couldn't really wield two shields (by the wording in shield bash- it looks like you could attack with shield bash as an offhand attack, and benefit from a mainhand shield, which should in most situations be a lot worse than just doing a mainhand dagger attack or something). I don't think that matters too much, because if the rules DID allow it to be effective, I would say it was a problem with the rules.



And tell me, exactly what is wrong with being a little silly when playing a game?

In your games? Presumably nothing. But I don't think it's fair to assume that most campaigns can play so fast and loose with martial techniques.


It's a way to have fun. That's it. And it is what you make it.

I would say it is a form of participatory art, which means it's not just a way to have fun. I use games as a mechanism to tell a story in many cases, after all. Players should and do enjoy themselves, but if it's at the cost of the integrity of the game world, that's honestly a form of griefing.


Though just because you believe it's absurd (a matter of opinion) doesn't mean that someone's trying for attention, or abusing.

I disagree with his point that the player is being inherently abusive, but it *does* make some sense. I mean, you can't wield two shields by simple logic (that's why it's absurd, btw, it's not a matter of opinion any more than a fighter swinging around meat-chucks is up for debate), and someone attempting to break that rule is either possibly angling for some silly rule based abuse, has an honest interest (and misunderstanding of fighting styles) in the idea, or is attempting to put something that is *absurd* in your game. Introducing or forcing absurd situations is one of the amusing things about D&D, certainly- but usually a player designing a character like this is to essentially pooh-pooh the game world, though the player usually has no malicious intent.

So I can see wanting to ban it for that reason. But I don't even think he needs to go so far as to guess the player's motivation. Do you want to dual wield fish, shields, or turkeys? No, you cannot do that. How about tying a sword to your wang? Even after wishing for a prehensile wang? That would also be bad.



I could make an entirely ordinary wizard that spent half his time using Polymorph Any Object to turn chickens to commoners and commoners to chickens. Not absurd, by the earlier stated position of yours that magical effects are not absurd. But it's all about attention-getting.

See, that would make me laugh, I love that. But remember- now the player is acting WITHIN the game rules, to do something absurd. Otherwise he was attempting to make the game rules into something different and silly (or use silly game rules). This is a silly character. The other is a player making your game silly.


Then keep your rules in your games.

If "can't dual wield shields" is only a house rule, then D&D is in serious trouble.

Quietus
2009-07-06, 03:24 AM
I disagree with his point that the player is being inherently abusive, but it *does* make some sense. I mean, you can't wield two shields by simple logic (that's why it's absurd, btw, it's not a matter of opinion any more than a fighter swinging around meat-chucks is up for debate), and someone attempting to break that rule is either possibly angling for some silly rule based abuse, has an honest interest (and misunderstanding of fighting styles) in the idea, or is attempting to put something that is *absurd* in your game. Introducing or forcing absurd situations is one of the amusing things about D&D, certainly- but usually a player designing a character like this is to essentially pooh-pooh the game world, though the player usually has no malicious intent.

So I can see wanting to ban it for that reason. But I don't even think he needs to go so far as to guess the player's motivation. Do you want to dual wield fish, shields, or turkeys? No, you cannot do that. How about tying a sword to your wang? Even after wishing for a prehensile wang? That would also be bad.

Difference here is that fish and turkeys aren't weapons, and you can only wield weapons in your hands (generally). Dual-wielding shields isn't against logic, either. The biggest problem I can think of? No hands. But if you get your buddy to strap your shields to your arms in the morning, that's only going to be a problem when you try to swim. Or climb. You can still whack people with them just fine.





If "can't dual wield shields" is only a house rule, then D&D is in serious trouble.

Consider; Shields (spiked and otherwise) are given entries in the weapon lists. And the only restriction on two-weapon fighting is that you have to be able to wield them - that is, you can't twf greatswords because you can't physically wield a greatsword in one hand (normally). So yes. "Can't dual wield shields" is a house rule.

If you want to discourage your own players from doing it, go ahead. Saying that no one can is foolish.

Coidzor
2009-07-06, 03:38 AM
Hell, I'd allow it just to see how well he did with it.

You can use a turkey or fish as an improvised weapon though. I mean, hell, the trope of the trout club is fairly well-in-grained in slapstick humor. ...And who hasn't wanted to beat someone upside the head with a turkey drumstick? :smallbiggrin:

tenshiakodo
2009-07-06, 04:15 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RhZiegns9o (whole fight)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N05RK8xZaYY#t=2m50s (watch for about 30 seconds)

Wow, some heated debate here. First, that video was awesome. Yes, it's a bit far-fetched, but no more so than, say, some of the Swordsage Maneuvers in Bot9S.

Debating whether a fighting style is based on an absurd premise or not is ultimately pointless. The only acid test is to go out there and do it. I'm certain that, in desperation, using two shields has been done before in the history of warfare. And it may have enjoyed limited success under certain circumstances.

The main reason it wouldn't be a viable technique in most respects I think is obvious enough. Shields are heavy, and have no real reach. The shield bash is a close quarters combat maneuver, and while the DnD rules don't take comparative weapon reach into account ever (save for special weapons denoted to have reach), an opponent with a longer weapon has an advantage over you.

That having been said, the DnD rules allow players to routinely fight in strange ways. You can attempt to grapple an opponent in a sword fight, which is generally a big no no. But if you want to make a grapple-focused character, you CAN, the game allows it, and it's even possible to find ways to make it viable!

Let's consider a few tactics the game supports, but many will claim are never viable.

Sunder is a big offender. The game supports it, anyone can take the action, and there are (multiple) feats that improve/enhance your ability to sunder. Yet many will point out that the effort made to destroy an enemies equipment would be better used to kill the opponent, that disarm is just as useful and doesn't require He-Man muscles (breaking swords is harder than you think), and finally, you're not destroying your own treasure!

But I can make a Sunder-focused character, right?

As ludicrous as it sounds, Sword-and-Board tactics are also right up here. While highly effective in the real world, any form of active shield use other than "I stand like a dunce and hide behind my shield" requires a special talent or Feat. AC can be rendered irrelevant in a lot of ways, and the most effective combat technique in DnD is the use of two handed weapons.

I could go on, but I think the point is clear. What is absurd is in the eyes of the beholder. But let's not stamp on player ingenuity or creativity either. The argument I saw claimed that allowing bizarre things was opening the door to letting players disrupt the game.

If a player wants to disrupt the game, it doesn't matter WHAT you allow; that's a bad player. If they're the kind of person who wants to play a Dwarf who wears a barrel for armor just to cause confusion, you shouldn't have to worry about banning barrel-armor, you shouldn't play with this guy in the first place!

Two shields is in the same category, I think. The reasoning is that allowing it would allow for disruptive play; I refute this, allowing the player to play ANYTHING allows for disruptive play if he's that kind of person.

Your second argument is that if it did work, it would be because of some bizarre rules exploit that has nothing to do with legitimate tactics.

"Legitimate tactics", as I already pointed out above, has nothing to do with the d20 rules. The designers created a lovely game that I enjoy playing, but they made some general assumptions about combat that really don't make much sense to begin with.

I mean, charging full-tilt into combat, leaping into the air with a greatsword is an effective maneuver by the rules. In reality, this is an insane, unbelievably risky stunt, and any trained warrior would make mincemeat out of someone attacking in such a way.

And conversely, playing a ranged weapon specialist, sniping at enemies from afar, is considered to be very inefficient.

If the real world worked like DnD, I submit that shields wouldn't exist, and neither would the longbow, everyone would just run at each other with manly zweihanders and that would be that.

The bottom line is, the game is about having fun. If you can't have fun by allowing a player to play a fighter who dual-wields spiked gauntlets (and finds a way to perform his role, despite the suboptimal choice) and simply wants to do so because it's "cool", that's fine, but you may be failing to consider the needs and wants of your players.

Players + DM = Game.

DM - Players = Lots of Money Wasted On Books.

Talic
2009-07-06, 05:27 AM
Then my answer to him would be "explain why your character had this sudden hankering/hunch/"who knows" etc/ to take his life in his hands by confronting an orc with an improvised weapon when other alternatives would be available.

The answer to that had better be a LOT better than a "hunch" or a "feeling" or "Who knows" which are all just ways of saying "there really is no good reason for someone to do this in mortal combat but I can't think of any so I'll jsut say there's 'any number' of them". "His back was against the wall, and it was the only thing in arm's reach. It worked, protecting his vitals, and the broad attack of the shield kept his attackers at bay long enough for him to fight his way out. Ever since, he was intrigued with the concept of using traditionally defensive weapons in an offensive role. As he had been training in dual-wielding for some time afterwards, he decided to attempt blending the two styles."

Make no mistake. The above explanation is how martial arts styles are started. Something new works, or someone sees something being used, and then attempts to incorporate it into the style he/she already knows. MMA fighters (who certainly know more than you or I about fighting) do this regularly, incorporating moves never used before in their field to good -and innvative- effect.

Fighting is sometimes about using tactically powerful moves to win.
Sometimes, it's about using techniques that exploit a weakness in an opponent (fire for trolls, etc).
Other times? The unexpected can be effective because it's unexpected. In early UFC, Joyce Gracie swept more than one tournament versus strikers and traditional wrestlers, because nobody knew how to handle Jiu-jitsu, or his Brazilian style of it.

He came back years later, and got destroyed, by people who DID know Jiu-Jitsu, and defended against it. New styles get invented, tried, and those things that work, continue. But it all happens because someone trains.

By your logic, nobody should ever dual wield, because they'd start off with massive mechanical penalties. Why then, would someone ever train to the point of eliminating those penalties and being good with the weapon?

That's what training is. Taking something you're bad at, and becoming good.


No. It didn't come to him. If it actually worked, someone else somewhere in the world would have invented it. I have never seen, in any campaign world, fantasy novel, movie, or RL account, somneone doing this. Unlike magic where "well it;s magic!" works, shields do exist in real life and no one does this, nor does anyone in the campaign world.There's always a first. You call that first "absurd", much as people called Christopher Columbus a lunatic, for venturing a new theory.

There's a difference between "absurd" and "pioneer". There's always a first.


This is the player abusing the lack of a rule to impose truly appropriate penalties on such absurd fighting, which are not there because no one at WotC ever thought someone would try to do that. In fact, it's so ridiculous this is the first time I've ever heard anyone actually propose the idea.Search threads. It's been brought up before, both here and at WotC boards.

I'd also appreciate you not refer to proponents of this as people who abuse rules. You don't want us sticking our fingers in your game without knowing about it? Grant us the same courtesy.


Now we're really getting absurd. A character feels a "connection" to a tactic despite taking massive penalties for it being unweildy and used in a manner he isn't trained for?I'd feel an affinity to anything that got me a "W". Tactically sound or not. You'll see world class poker players who play 3-5 offsuit in Texas Hold Em. Not because it's a good hand; it's horrible. But because it's won for them in the past. People remember their victories, and the emotion from it affects their decisions. Even if it's not the most tactically optimal choice.


That's what we call "metagaming". The character has no real reason to feel this connection, based on the awkwardness and unweildiness of the 2 shields during the fight? No, he doesn't, no matter what his player says. This is just the player doing something bizarre for the sake of being bizarre, and matagaming obviously to do it.So Daniel Negranu metagames life then.


He keeps the shields, and continues to fight that way in spite of the massive attack penalty. Maybe his character isn't sharpest knife in the drawer, or maybe the block is just really superstitious and wants to stick with what defeated that Orc in that circumstance. Ever been in a warzone? I have. Those that risk their life on a daily basis tend to be rather superstitious. Regardless of whether or not it "makes sense" to your reasoning.


None of this ever happens. He never gets to the second or third fight because if he really insists on this metagame "it just feels right despite massive penalties" nonsense then the answer is "your character is suffering from serious mental breakdown and is now an NPC. Roll a new one - and if this one wants to fight with 2 shields, you're done. You know we have a rule here about being adults. Adults do not claim their character likes a certain fighting style over others that they're better at just so they can show off by doing something bizarre."And that's where you're being closed minded. You're only as old as you feel, man. Sometimes, it feels good to let the inner child out, a bit. Go to a waterpark. Ride a rollercoaster. No, it's not the most optimal use of your time and money.

But it's fun.

Sewercop
2009-07-06, 07:27 AM
I had a player using two shields as weapons. This was not d&d but rolemaster(old version). He used them as bashing weapons.

It was not a good way to fight, but he had fun doing it. His character stood out in a crowd of normaly bland fighters. It was a suboptimal choice, but hey, he had fun :)

I see no reason to why this should not be allowed in d&d. It is a sub optimal choice. Yes you can probably cheese it out, but it is easy to cheese out in d&d.

Yrcrazypa
2009-07-06, 07:56 AM
Morbo Says Shield Not Work That Way!

If you have two tower shields that are curved in a way that they can lock together, they do! And I'm sure there is some form of enchantment or material that will make them translucent or transparent.

Not to mention, dual wielding shields is no more or less absurd than dual wielding two weapons that are approximately longsword in length, it isn't possible in the real world to do that with any effectiveness either, since they would get in the way. Dual wielding a longsword and a dagger is possible to do in the real world, but then again, dual wielding a small shield and a tower shield would be basically the same thing.

I've always wanted to play a character that dual wields shields anyway, and saying "you can't do it because someone else had to have done it and it never spread" is just a bullocks argument, what if you were the first to think about it and actually try it? After all, someone had to have done it and it's not absurd to think that you may be the first to do it.

Partysan
2009-07-06, 08:34 AM
To throw my 2 cents in: I, while training in medieval combat styles (mainy the long sword, which is equal to D&D's bastard sword and usually wielded with two hands) can't see, why fighting with two shields would be such an absurd thing.
You see, fighting with two great shields that as long as from the ground to the throat, that's impossible, but two round shields or anything about that size could work somehow. They wouldn't actually get in the way as much as two weapons would, since they don't extend away from your body but only along your arms. Throw in a sharpened edge on one or both (nothing unusal actually) and you can use them to bash or to cut and have a great defense.
The biggest problems in this are 1. a short range and 2. the weight. Now the range is going to be a problem, but it's not much shorter than that of a short sword and penetrating an opponents attacking range is one of the things shields are very useful for. About the weight... well, I met someone who used a bastard sword in one hand and an axe in the other. He admitted, that he couldn't keep this up for more than 10 minutes and then he'd be unable to fight. But since most fights don't last that long and D&D characters can have very high strength, so they could do this more easily, the combat style of dual wiedling shields is not absurd at all and probably would be used a lot more, if it was mechanically rewarding.
That using a sword and a weapon is more effective in real life (and it surely is) is no point for it being absurd in D&D, since sword and board is mechanically weak in D&D while being very strong IRL.

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 09:23 AM
Difference here is that fish and turkeys aren't weapons

My point is that a mainhand shield isn't a weapon either.


Dual-wielding shields isn't against logic, either.

Yes it is! The only reason it makes sense to anyone even briefly is because it has a damage entry in the PHB. Fish and turkeys don't have those, so no one is talking about those- but it's just as silly. It's on the level of exploiting something that lets you wield a bow in one hand- even if the author of the feat or set of feats didn't catch that, it doesn't pass the reality test.


The biggest problem I can think of? No hands.

The issue here is that shields are not meant to be used that way. The shield bash is an attempt to model the fact that you can use the shield as something besides a passive +2 to AC.


But if you get your buddy to strap your shields to your arms in the morning, that's only going to be a problem when you try to swim. Or climb. You can still whack people with them just fine.

I seriously wonder how such a design would fare IRL against an opponent with a sword and a shield. I suspect he would have both of his shields pushed away or held in place while a sword strikes home.

Also, were shields strapped on? I'm not sure.


Consider; Shields (spiked and otherwise) are given entries in the weapon lists.

So is the claw and bite of a dragon or a bear, but no one would argue that you should be able to dismember or behead one of those creatures and wield the claw or head and get the base damage. My point is that the context of how the weapon is used is important. A shield bash is meant to be employed NOT absent a threatening weapon.


And the only restriction on two-weapon fighting is that you have to be able to wield them

Actually, the entries on the weapon table aren't like the other ones. They have a listed damage, but if you read, it says that you can bash with a shield "instead of using it for defense". If you go look that up, it states that you can bash with a shield "using it as an offhand weapon". It never states that the shield bash would function if you had it in your "main hand". Now that might be a bit restrictive, but the rules don't currently support using it in that fashion.

Now, WHY do they use that wording? Because they assume (correctly) that you will never attempt to "dual wield shields". The rules don't even address the possibility because it is just that dumb.


If you want to discourage your own players from doing it, go ahead.

The idea was brought up years ago while we were brainstorming kooky things that the rules might allow, and so we immediately set about checking the rules. They don't allow it by virtue of having never considered it- because they assume that the game is meant to model reality, which wielding two shields simply does not do. But if you want to be *technical*, a shield bash is an offhand attack, and you only have one offhand.

The game rules might state somewhere that you have to be wielding a shield to get the benefit of it, but this does sound a lot like the 2ed guy who straps shields to his back and points out that, by the rules, he should probably have a killer AC (I never stopped to actually find whether the rules allowed it or not- it doesn't pass the sanity test).


You can use a turkey or fish as an improvised weapon though.

Well, it depends. In general, you could- but note that the mechanics of that would be pretty poor, and that improvised weapons are heavily up to the DM's approval. Not everything is necessarily about to be used as an improvised melee weapon- a sparrow feather would be a hard sell versus a medium or small creature, for instance.


Saying that no one can is foolish.

No it isn't, that's the point! If the rules don't explicitly ban it, it's because they assumed that the players and the DM are on the same side as the developers in creating a world that is sensical.



Debating whether a fighting style is based on an absurd premise or not is ultimately pointless. The only acid test is to go out there and do it.

That's incorrect. In general, we can say that some things aren't useful, because the folks whose lives depended on martial techniques would have used them. Generations of people had access to shields, and had the occasion to employ them in defense of themselves and their loved ones and property. If dual wielding two shields was at ALL effective, someone would have done that. Someone in an area where blades were restricted and shields were not, for instance- that would have been one of the first things to try.

The other thing to remember is- trying stuff out IRL is a tough match to history, because the situations aren't really the same. History is our best guide for things that existed back then- and shields and swords fall into that category.


That having been said, the DnD rules allow players to routinely fight in strange ways. You can attempt to grapple an opponent in a sword fight, which is generally a big no no.

The rules do a decent job of mirroring reality here unless you have that improved grapple feat remember- you provoke an attack of opportunity when you start the grapple. Improved grapple pretty much assumes that you are some kind of *amazing* at that- and it's in there specifically so you *can* make a master martial artist that can grab opponents who have an obvious advantage on them.


Sunder is a big offender.

The bigger problem with that is that in a sword fight, in addition to it being silly to try to attack your foe's weapon, there's the fact that you just can't attack a sword like that unless it's braced and held into position. It's bad logic for a NUMBER of reasons- whatever logic that grants your opponent 100 hit points should probably grant at least a comperable number to his sword, because it's obvious after you have hit him for 30 points of damage that you didn't actually cut his arms off three times over.

I ban sunder, both the action and the feat. I feel it's a clear oversight of the system, put in to let some cool things happen that wouldn't be really possible. There are situations where the action WOULD make sense, and others where it would NOT.

I also didn't like it mechanically- the PCs didn't like to focus on destroying their soon to be treasure, and the few NPCs with sunder were inevitable met with sighs and approaching them with backup weapons drawn, and complaints that the entire thing was absurd- which I agreed with from the start but had tried it out anyway to see if it was mechanically required or awesome.


and the most effective combat technique in DnD is the use of two handed weapons.

Though probably not the thread for this, there are a few easy things you can do to increase the efficacy of shields- you can up the AC bonus provided by them by one or two, and you can allow it to apply versus touch attacks that require someone to actually really touch you (for instance, versus the touch attack to initiate a grapple). I agree with your assessment that a two handed weapon is dramatically more powerful than other fighting styles, but that's a reason to fix the system, not try to defend dual wielding shields!


If they're the kind of person who wants to play a Dwarf who wears a barrel for armor just to cause confusion, you shouldn't have to worry about banning barrel-armor, you shouldn't play with this guy in the first place!

Well, I was saying that usually these players don't actually mean ill, they just want to have a laugh at the expense of your game world, and they don't realize how that is griefing.


The designers created a lovely game that I enjoy playing, but they made some general assumptions about combat that really don't make much sense to begin with.

Well yes, but they *did* try. Personally I feel you are better trying to patch up those differences than use that as a justification to throw your hands up and say "Fine, clearly a couple of these martial feats don't represent reality, so fish fighters, form up!"


There's a difference between "absurd" and "pioneer". There's always a first.

There was plenty of time in history to experiment with double shields versus people who wanted to kill. It didn't work!

Mr.Moron
2009-07-06, 09:50 AM
because it has a damage entry in the PHB. Fish and turkeys don't have those, so no one is talking about those

Actually, objects of roughly swingable shapes they'd be improvised weapons. Based on their sizes a roughly 12lb turkey would do 1d8 damage, and a moderately sized fish perhaps a smallish cod would be 1d6. Both would deal bludgeoning damage have a threat range of 20/x2.

FIX: This is based on the rules for figuring improvised weapons, in CW. So I'm not just ass-pulling here.


EDIT: Bonus points if you can find a way to magically freeze the fish and/or turkey. There wouldn't be any rules for that. But given my experience with dropping frozen poultry on my own feet, I can't imagine getting hit by one would be very much fun.

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 09:59 AM
Actually, objects of roughly swingable shapes they'd be improvised weapons. Based on their sizes a roughly 12lb turkey would do 1d8 damage, and a moderately sized fish perhaps a smallish cod would be 1d6. Both would deal bludgeoning damage have a threat range of 20/x2.

I would arrive at very different values. A cod should probably deal nonlethal damage by the same logic that a fist would, but the rules would imply that you should probably just not be able to use a soft fish as a lethal weapon (the improvised weapons rules don't apply to just *anything*).




Improvised Weapons

Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses one in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.

First of all, note the "sometimes". Secondly, you are assuming a 12 pound turkey is most similar to a crafted heavy mace, which is probably a bit of a stretch. I mean, would a 24 pound turkey be strictly better in melee combat than a 12 pound one? That's a silly question.



EDIT: Bonus points if you can find a way to magically freeze the fish and/or turkey. There wouldn't be any rules for that.

Well I would rule that the fish couldn't be used as a weapon (you'd be better off punching) unless frozen, and that the frozen turkey might actually qualify for the d8 of the heavy mace. Improvised weapons inherently make some assumptions, notably that the object in question is appropriate to be used as a weapon.


But given my experience with dropping frozen poultry on my own feet, I can't imagine getting hit by one would be very much fun.

Well in that case we should for sure be wielding couches!

Mr.Moron
2009-07-06, 10:12 AM
I would arrive at very different values. A cod should probably deal nonlethal damage by the same logic that a fist would, but the rules would imply that you should probably just not be able to use a soft fish as a lethal weapon (the improvised weapons rules don't apply to just *anything*).

That's nice that you would arrive at different values. But the values are derived from a chart based on weight, not my whims.

less than 2lb: 1d3
2lb-5lb: 1d4
6lb-10lb: 1d6
11lb-25lb: 1d8
26lb-50lb: 2d6
51lb-100lb: 3d6
101lb-200lb: 4d6
201lb-400lb: 5d6
400+: +1d6/200lb

At 12lbs the Turkey is a two-handed weapon
At just under 10lbs the smallish cod, is one-handed.

It's in complete warrior, and it's specific. Given that in RAW, specific trumps general the CW chart takes precedence over the general PHB/SRD entry.





First of all, note the "sometimes". Secondly, you are assuming a 12 pound turkey is most similar to a crafted heavy mace, which is probably a bit of a stretch. I mean, would a 24 pound turkey be strictly better in melee combat than a 12 pound one? That's a silly question.

I'm not making assumptions or trying to equate anything with anything else. I'm just going by the weight chart. You can pick it up, swing it, it has mass. It's going slam into your target just like any other heavy object on whatever material plane you're in at the time.





Well I would rule that the fish couldn't be used as a weapon (you'd be better off punching) unless frozen, and that the frozen turkey might actually qualify for the d8 of the heavy mace. Improvised weapons inherently make some assumptions, notably that the object in question is appropriate to be used as a weapon.


OK. I think getting hit by any 10lb object is going to hurt enough to qualify as a "Weapon". Go up and hit someone with a whole a cod, see what get charged with.




Well in that case we should for sure be wielding couches!

They'd be too big for medium creatures, but enlarged or at large they'd be two handed weapons that deal 3d6 damage.

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 10:20 AM
That's nice that you would arrive at different values.

Yes, I'm pretty good at this!


But the values are derviced from a chart based on weight, not my whims.

I know that chart. It gives pretty much the same results as applying the core rule too, which is based on weapon weights. I also know that the object has to be weapon like to qualify, which a cod obviously is not.


I'm not making assumptions or trying to equate anything with anything else. I'm just going by the weight chart. You can pick it up, swing it, it has mass. It's going slam into your target just like any other heavy object on whatever material plane you're in at the time.

That's kind of a silly reading, and not really justified by the rules. I mean, I have a feather pillow that weighs a couple pounds, but it's clearly not meant to be used as a melee weapon- nor would it deal damage as one if used to bludgeon.


Essentially, the table and the rules are fine, but clearly we aren't in a situation where absolutely anything with mass is a weapon at any time.

cfalcon
2009-07-06, 10:33 AM
It's in complete warrior, and it's specific. Given that in RAW, specific trumps general the CW chart takes precedence over the general PHB/SRD entry.

On the off chance that RAW supports killer pillow squads, what precisely is that supposed to imply? A problem with the RAW? Duly noted, if that's the case.

Note also that the CW entry says that most improvised weapons deal between 1d3 and 1d6, and that for more guidance, you can consult the weight table. It doesn't state that the weight table is your go-to guide for fish attacks.

Coidzor
2009-07-06, 10:33 AM
Unless you're a drunken master! :smallbiggrin:

Pillows, yeah, I'd agree that they'd get a lower damage dice despite their weight... Though, on the other hand, their weight is pretty low compared to their volume, so... Not like they're gonna weigh a whole lot usually anyway.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-06, 11:03 AM
On the off chance that RAW supports killer pillow squads, what precisely is that supposed to imply?


A chance to have fun, if that's what the player wants to do. Frankly I've already dealt with this issue in far, far far more *shudder* simulationist *shudder* terms than I ever like to go near.

Ultimately I see threads like this were some guy DMing goes

"In MY game we don't do [Silly/Anime/Unrealistic/Immature/Stupid/Eastern/Psionic/ToB/Magic/Insert Something reasonable here] things, and me and MY players are all happy with it".

If players were really happy in those boxes the policies wouldn't exist. At some point someone must have brought up something they thought would be fun but the DM thought was "Silly" and fun was defeated that day.

You know whatever. I hate elves.I hate half-elves. I hate pixies, fairys, and anything else generally "Pointy Eared & Pretty". In fact I think just about 80/90% of things connected to the whole Fey type fall under the reaction: "Oh God. Not this. Please ANYTHING but this." for me.

I'm still not going to stop anyone from playing a stupid pointy-eared, pointy-ear... pointy... whatever.

Quietus
2009-07-06, 11:31 AM
Stuff

As for your comments about shields not being weapons : Yes, they are. They've been used as weapons frequently in the past, most notably by the Spartan warriors - a single solid whack from those shields can leave an opponent stunned if it's a front-on hit, or even dead if they catch you in the head with the edge of the shield. Again, the only reason they didn't use two shields is because *they are too heavy to do that with*, which isn't an issue for D&D characters, because they *have the strength to do that without issue*.

And evidence has been given in this very thread, by people who do have experience with combat, that says fighting with two shields COULD be a feasible option, if not for long periods, the specific length of time limited again by the user's strength. Just as I've been saying all along.

So yes. Shields ARE meant to be used as weapons. They're a fantastically effective short-range weapon in the hands of someone trained to use them, and with enough strength, COULD in fact be dual-wielded, even in a real-world situation.



I seriously wonder how such a design would fare IRL against an opponent with a sword and a shield. I suspect he would have both of his shields pushed away or held in place while a sword strikes home.

Also, were shields strapped on? I'm not sure.

How would someone push away BOTH shields while still having a hand to strike with their sword? One shield, sure, I can see that being pushed to one side... thankfully, I have a second one over here to block with, then push in close and thwack my attacker upside the head with!


Now, WHY do they use that wording? Because they assume (correctly) that you will never attempt to "dual wield shields". The rules don't even address the possibility because it is just that dumb.


The game rules don't take a lot of things into account, because the designers were thinking along a traditional line of thought. They never thought "Hey, take a ten foot ladder, break out the rungs, sell it as two ten foot poles! WE'RE GENIUSES!". They never thought about Wizards who would prefer to control the battlefield rather than throwing around fireballs and lightning bolts. They never thought about Clerics or Druids mass-buffing themselves and out-fighting the fighter. THAT is why they used that particular wording; They were thinking your typical knight-in-armor, with a longsword and shield, not a spartan with a powerful shield bash as an important part of his combat repertoire.

The Gilded Duke
2009-07-06, 12:12 PM
Wield 2 bucklers with wand sheaths to go with your quarterstaff with a wand sheath on both ends. Get armor spikes with a wand sheath.

Be a Blastoficer. You are now considered to have 5 wands in hand at the same time.

VirOath
2009-07-06, 12:42 PM
For absurd weapons, to the mention of natural attacks getting a damage listing yet no one would argue that you should be able to rip off a Bear's head and use it's bite attack.

I will argue that.

Take a ten foot pole, a wand of animate dead and some sovereign glue. Cut the Bear's head off where the neck meets the shoulders, glue it's spine and muscles on the ten foot pole, cast animate dead and voila!

Zombie Head On A Stick!

Bite attack with reach!

Just don't get it wet. And you wouldn't get your strength damage to it, so it's perfect for the wizard!

The Glyphstone
2009-07-06, 12:47 PM
That might actually be legal if you used Animate Object instead of Animate Dead, or took the Crawling Head demon/undead thing from....Libris Mortis or Fiend Folio and put it on the end of said stick...

Myrmex
2009-07-06, 01:01 PM
I think you could make two shield fighting look pretty cool. Stylize them to look like the two halves of a beetle shell, and have them sharp on the edges. They could be like two extremely huge bracers with a sharp top so you could punch people with the pointy bladed parts, or slice to the side or back with the tip. Then, when you needed to, you could take cover by holding them both up. I could see thri-keen using them.

Lycanthromancer
2009-07-06, 01:15 PM
I think you could make two shield fighting look pretty cool. Stylize them to look like the two halves of a beetle shell, and have them sharp on the edges. They could be like two extremely huge bracers with a sharp top so you could punch people with the pointy bladed parts, or slice to the side or back with the tip. Then, when you needed to, you could take cover by holding them both up. I could see thri-keen using them.

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "Ancestors protect us."

warrl
2009-07-06, 03:26 PM
My ruling if I were DMing this:

Part of the reason shield attacks work is because the person doing the shield attack ALSO has this other attacking weapon that the target has to worry about. Even if that other weapon is only a bare fist punching the target in the face or groin, and even if you can't literally use it during the attack (because the target doesn't know for sure if you're bluffing until you hit).

Therefore, during a shield attack and until the beginning of your next turn, you are using the better *attacking* shield for all purposes (including defense), with a penalty because you don't have that other attack possibility.

In other words, if you want to do a shield attack with two shields, you can improve your to-hit and your damage by throwing one of the shields on the ground behind you. Without harming your defense any in that round.

Meanwhile, if you don't do a shield attack, you get the benefits of the better shield for defensive purposes - and no fighter attack at all. Of course, you could, say, drink a potion... no, wait, your entire arm is busy with that shield, no you can't drink a potion. (Unless the smaller shield is a buckler. Which would almost never be the better shield for either attack or defense.)

So on defense you would at least be no worse off, and possibly better off, by throwing one shield on the ground.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-07-06, 06:19 PM
Can we get away from the "THIS DOESN'T WORK IN REAL" "REAL DOESN'T MATTER" and return to the mechanics/optimizing/does it work in D&D (assuming the DM lets it)

Billyjoe
2009-07-06, 07:17 PM
So I spent a while building around the nifty little Warforged idea posted earlier.
There are two ways I see this build happening: Roguelike or Fighterlike. If you wanted ot be the warforged you might go the fighter route. I personally prefer the rogue build and so here is my idea:

Wood Elf Rogue - 6
Thats three feats to piddle with at sixth level. I'd go with Shield Proficiency, Two Weapon Fighting, and Improved Shield Bash. I wasn't sure whether a shield would be finesse'd so I decided that the stat array shoul be something like this (30 point buy).
STR-18
DEX-10
CON-14
INT-12
WIS10
CHA-8
With racial modifiers thrown in thats 18/12/12/12/12/8. Its not the best but it works. You could lower the strength some... and go 16/12/14/14/10/8 on a 28 point buy. If you did that the final would be 16/14/12/14/10/8. Not too shabby I think.

EDIT: I will be using the wood elf (because warforged would be better suited to the fighter I think) and the I will be using the 28 point buy stat array for everything else in the post. Sorry if it is kind of scatterbrained.

So how do I buy equipment. I prioritized armor, then weapons, then scrolls (for use magical device checks). So the shields: Heavy Steel Shield and Light Shield. Put shield spikes on each. The damage is now that of a large creature. Make each sheild a shield of bashing and you spend 2000 gp plus 20 for shield spikes and 159 and 170 for the shields (light then heavy). Buy yourself some masterwork chain, that gives an additional 300.

With all that i am down to 10351 GP left to spend. Now for the fun. Buy an animated tower shield. That brings your gold reserve down to 6171. Put a +1 WEAPON enchant on each shield (or get a +1 bonus, maybe shocking just because of the pun). That leaves you with 2171 gold left. What to do with it. Eight words: scrolls of Enlarge Person and of bulls strength. You couln't afford to buy many but really, +6 strength and a size category is enough. Your stats are now: 24/12/12/14/10/8.

Your weapons are +1 size category (medium to large) then the shield spike makes the damage another size category up (so they are huge), and then the shield of bashing makes them ANOTHER size category up (gargantuan is next?). So lets say you got shockin on both shields, thats +1d6 electricity damage per shield. But whats the base damage. Going by the tables it would be: 3d6 for the large shield, 2d6 for the small shield. That means my damage is now 3d6+1d6+7 for my main hand, and 2d6+1d6+7 for my of hand. But wait... why am I a rogue again? Against anything with a kidney to squish to can iron maiden them for another 3d6 per hand. So my damage dice on a hit with my main hand/offhand without SA will be (averaged): 19/16. With sneak attack we can add in 3d6 per to get: 28/25.

Your characters approach? Make the tower shield dance, hide behind it, charge things when it becomes optimal. Your AC will be: 10+4(Tower shield) or +2 when using the tower shield as cover +4(Chain Shirt)-1 size+1 dexterity. Its not great but its... well its not great which is why I think going cover->charge->cover would be optimal.

If you can go with unearthed arcana and get your DM to be cool with it. You could do the fighter sneak attack variant with a strongheart halflin(to give an extra feat) and then finesse things. Its slightly less assured damage, and instead of enlargeperson you would take reduce. Hehe now I'm just picturing a 1 foot tall ball of spikes charging around the battlefield. That would also up the AC quite a bit... hmmm.

Anyways that is my attempt at optimizing it. I probably broke several rules (rarely do any kind of optimizationa nd I didn't check my bonuses or the rules for animated weapons). Hopefully this will be a good springboard though.

Another edit: I did all this through the SRD. With splatbooks I'm sure you could cook up something ridiculous.

awa
2009-07-06, 07:55 PM
It seems to me that the question was is a two shield fighter a viable option do the shields stack by the rules it seems that with out a custom ruling, class or feat the bonuses do not stack. Every thing else whether it's realistic or not whether you personally would allow a charecter two pick up two shields or not, is besides the point

Hat-Trick
2009-07-06, 08:30 PM
Out of core, you'd want Shield Specialization, Improved Shield Bash, Agile Shield Fighter. Shield Ward would be sweet, as well.

Billyjoe
2009-07-06, 08:37 PM
What is Shield Ward? Sounds fun :smallsmile:

Coidzor
2009-07-06, 09:28 PM
Indeed, what do those feats you just listed do?

And are there any that allow the shield bonus to used while attacking with it? (if I remember correctly, normally the shield bonus is lost when attacking with it. but I'm pretty sure there's a feat that fixes that) Or to get the advantages of two+ shield bonuses?

Myrmex
2009-07-06, 10:11 PM
My ruling if I were DMing this:

Part of the reason shield attacks work is because the person doing the shield attack ALSO has this other attacking weapon that the target has to worry about. Even if that other weapon is only a bare fist punching the target in the face or groin, and even if you can't literally use it during the attack (because the target doesn't know for sure if you're bluffing until you hit).

Therefore, during a shield attack and until the beginning of your next turn, you are using the better *attacking* shield for all purposes (including defense), with a penalty because you don't have that other attack possibility.

In other words, if you want to do a shield attack with two shields, you can improve your to-hit and your damage by throwing one of the shields on the ground behind you. Without harming your defense any in that round.

Meanwhile, if you don't do a shield attack, you get the benefits of the better shield for defensive purposes - and no fighter attack at all. Of course, you could, say, drink a potion... no, wait, your entire arm is busy with that shield, no you can't drink a potion. (Unless the smaller shield is a buckler. Which would almost never be the better shield for either attack or defense.)

So on defense you would at least be no worse off, and possibly better off, by throwing one shield on the ground.

That's dumb.
You should try getting in a fight sometime.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-06, 10:17 PM
Indeed, what do those feats you just listed do?

And are there any that allow the shield bonus to used while attacking with it? (if I remember correctly, normally the shield bonus is lost when attacking with it. but I'm pretty sure there's a feat that fixes that) Or to get the advantages of two+ shield bonuses?

Shield Specialization increases the AC bonus for one type of shield wieleded by one, Shield Ward applies the shield bonus to touch attacks and various opposed rolls against special attacks, and Agile Shield fighter decreases the two weapon penalty to -2 rather than those nasty -10/-8 when using a shield, so it replaces two weapon fighting. I believe Improved Shield Bash allows the AC bonus to still apply.

Talic
2009-07-07, 12:27 AM
For those who say shields aren't weapons, I encourage you to watch "Deadliest Warrior". Not all shields are designed as weapons. True.

But look at the Scottish Targe. Heavy, solid shield, a 1 foot spike coming out the front.

What else is the spike there for? Certainly not defensive use.

Yes, Shields are used in an offensive capacity in the Real World. Not that it matters.

Just as when fun defeats the deep compelling story, the latter is damaged a bit...

When the converse happens, fun suffers. And who wants to play a game that's utterly realistic... But no fun?

Anyone? I just got a copy of "Totally Real Lawn Mowing: 2010 Edition".

Lycanthromancer
2009-07-07, 12:35 AM
"Screw the rules!
I have money!
I have green hair!
I'm a dual-shield-wielder!"

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 12:37 AM
"You're just jealous because you didn't think of it."

Talic
2009-07-07, 01:19 AM
To summarize:

OP's post: Is it allowed?
Several People: Yes.
A couple others: I wouldn't let that crap fly in MY game!

In other words, whether it's silly, or breaks suspension of disbelief, or anything else is irrelevant. The OP wanted to know if the rules allowed it.

Yes. They do. Further discussion could be on which rules help or hinder it. But bringing your home-game-bias to the table is not handling the issue in a objective and helpful manner for the OP.

cfalcon
2009-07-07, 03:49 AM
The OP wanted to know if the rules allowed it.

The rules allow you to shield punch, but only as an offhand attack. Which means that the dual wielding shield "fighter" would, by the rules, be able to forgo his shield bonus on his offhand to punch with it. He could not do the same with his mainhand. He would have no mainhand attack.

So then the next question is, does he gain a shield bonus for wielding the shield with his mainhand. By the SRD, it would seem that he does, because as long as you can "strap it to your forearm and grip it with your hand", you are presumed to be "using" it, and gain the shield bonus to AC.


But bringing your home-game-bias to the table is not handling the issue in a objective and helpful manner for the OP.

Home-game-bias? It's dual wielded shields man. That's not bias. It's just so frustrating to see folks argue that it's realistic, or useful, or whatever. It's just so darned ignorant. You should *never* be able to find a game that doesn't "houserule" it, is the point. If someone doesn't do the very basics of parsing reality, you are NOT playing D&D, period, because you don't have a DM.

The problem then becomes that folks are implying that the rules, if they allow, it, are all that's important. But in reality, that shouldn't matter. It's like, bizzaro land, where everyone cares about the wrong thing. More amusing is that folks who want to help the OP with his idea are posting all sorts of non-RAW things to make two shields effective, but of course, no one is yelling at them.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-07, 04:02 AM
If someone doesn't do the very basics of parsing reality, you are NOT playing D&D, period, because you don't have a DM.


So you have a game.There is someone claiming to be a DM, the players recognize the individual as having that position. The rules that any unarmed strike can bypass hardness and deal triple damage to brick walls so long as the creature in question uses a free action to yell "OH YEAH~!" before declaring the action. This is a result of the properties of unarmed strikes & brick walls and is not magic, supernatural, or extraordinary.

How does that fit into the whole D&D/Not D&D have a DM/Don't have a DM equation?

cfalcon
2009-07-07, 04:08 AM
As for your comments about shields not being weapons : Yes, they are.

Was nice of you to quote me saying that. Oh wait, you didn't. My quote was:

"My point is that a mainhand shield isn't a weapon either."

Which it is not. That implies that you are using a shield in your primary hand and no weapon in your offhand. That's incorrect, ahistorical, and silly.

I would never dispute that a shield is a weapon, but only in the context of being used correctly. Much like a sword held by the blade is not a weapon, and a gun with no bullets doesn't qualify either. So maybe you could read and quote instead of inventing statements I didn't say to disagree with.


Again, the only reason they didn't use two shields is because *they are too heavy to do that with*, which isn't an issue for D&D characters, because they *have the strength to do that without issue*.

You are pulling this out of your dimly lit well, the one that is so deep that the sun does not shine. Did you ask Spartans? What is it about a shield that they could hold one in their weaker hand, but not also in their stronger? Your whole argument is fictional.


by people who do have experience with combat, that says fighting with two shields COULD be a feasible option, if not for long periods, the specific length of time limited again by the user's strength. Just as I've been saying all along.

No evidence has been given. If you think that is combat, you are misusing the word. Nothing in the real world implies that shields were just too heavy, and swords were used instead or something. That's totally fiction. Additionally, many duels were fought with sword and buckler- why not buckler and buckler? They often had spikes and such on them, why didn't someone say, hey, forget this sword, I'm just dual shielding you down?

I think you know why. It's hard to believe you are even defending this.


and with enough strength, COULD in fact be dual-wielded, even in a real-world situation.

Quoting for amusment.



How would someone push away BOTH shields while still having a hand to strike with their sword?

You wouldn't need to. You would just need to lock them in place long enough. Not that it would *prove* anything, but you could probably rig up something like this with a friend- this double shield thing *seems* like it would be trivial enough to disprove in your own mind. I'm not going to say that it would prove anything because you aren't in combat (none of us are) , you aren't trained (very few of us are), and it's not historical conditions basically- but this shouldn't be a big deal to prove to yourself.


They were thinking your typical knight-in-armor, with a longsword and shield, not a spartan with a powerful shield bash as an important part of his combat repertoire.

A heater shield was not as common as is generally thought, but I would be surprised if it was much less effective than a Spartan shield, when all is said and done, at pushing people around.


If players were really happy in those boxes the policies wouldn't exist.

That's totally wrong. For instance, my current campaign world has no halflings. This was not because players were doing some explotive halfling related thing- in fact, NO players were running them. I didn't find any of their takes to be appropriate without bending stuff heavily, so I didn't write them in. Filling in rules holes like double wielded shields or whatever is just common sense and good practice. Many of them were banned via brainstorming things were we did what good game designers do: try to come up with exploits or border cases, and either call them fair or ban them. You have the same hostile attitude I see again and again on these forums, and maybe I'll never understand what it's about.

It's not about stuff you don't LIKE, by the way. It's about stuff that doesn't make sense. There's plenty of crap in the game I don't like, but I try to support as much of it as I can. I went through a lot of effort to write psionics in, for instance, even though the only use I've seen of it is in heavily exploitative builds- but it offers a unique flavor and it works in the context of reality-modifying things.

Anyway, thanks for all the cleverly disguised ad-hominem.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-07, 04:11 AM
Much like a sword held by the blade is not a weapon, and a gun with no bullets doesn't qualify either.


What if the bulletless gun in question is a gun that's being shot out of a sword, a sword that shoots guns from its hilt. You know, so you gotta hold the sword by the blade to shoot the guns properly.

EDIT: Said sword-fired guns also deal triple damage to brick walls.

cfalcon
2009-07-07, 04:13 AM
So you have a game.There is someone claiming to be a DM, the players recognize the individual as having that position. The [i]DM[i]<sic> rules that any unarmed strike can bypass hardness and deal triple damage to brick walls so long as the creature in question uses a free action to yell "OH YEAH~!" before declaring the action. This is a result of the properties of unarmed strikes & brick walls and is not magic, supernatural, or extraordinary.

How does that fit into the whole D&D/Not D&D have a DM/Don't have a DM equation?


Your DM is probably failing, unless you are actually gaming in Kool-Aid land and the physics are different. If you are gaming in Kool-Aid land and the physics are different, your DM is probably failing for another reason.

The reason he would be failing is that it's his job to parse reality and tell you what happens. Can you find a rule saying that characters can't breathe jello? How about a rule stating that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? Does stuff fall down? Part of the job of the DM is to handle these things- most of them are trivial, but many are very important.

cfalcon
2009-07-07, 04:14 AM
What if the bulletless gun in question is a gun that's being shot out of a sword, a sword that shoots guns from its hilt. You know, so you gotta hold the sword by the blade to shoot the guns properly.

I'd allow it, but you'd probably want to wear a gauntlet woven of stone kitten fur.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-07, 04:24 AM
I'd allow it, but you'd probably want to wear a gauntlet woven of stone kitten fur.

That makes no sense. Stone Kittens are wrong, any game that uses them is wrong.

I'll tell you what isn't wrong though, an Orphan Gun. It's a gun that when you shoot someone with it, it kills their parents. Also not magic.

Coidzor
2009-07-07, 04:24 AM
Oh come on. A kool-aid man centered adventure could be fun. :smalltongue: Or even being pulled into the alternate material plane of Kool-aid commercials.

Also, I don't see why one needs to tell the player not to do it. I mean, if they try to take the AC of the two shields, then that's not allowed without houseruling shield bonuses to work differently.

It's like telling a character not to use fireball against a troll because that'd kill it too quickly for your plotpoints to come up mid-combat, except, it doesn't actually do anything to your DMing due to its lack of power.

RAW allows TWF. RAW allows Shield Bashing. RAW allows two shields to be used as weapons. RAW allows feats to be taken that allow the shield bonus to be intact despite using it as a weapon. RAW does not allow shield bonuses to stack.

It is RAW sub-optimal, but it is allowed. There is no real reason to vehemently like or dislike it.

Also, I'm fairly certain there are cases where a sword is wielded by the blade held in gauntleted hands.

warrl
2009-07-07, 04:29 AM
That's dumb.
You should try getting in a fight sometime.

Very persuasive.

However, it doesn't persuade me that dual-shield fighting is even AS viable as single-shield.

warrl
2009-07-07, 04:31 AM
Did you ask Spartans? What is it about a shield that they could hold one in their weaker hand, but not also in their stronger?

Presumably, those who tried it as a combat technique had a bad habit of dying.

Billyjoe
2009-07-07, 04:39 AM
The rules allow you to shield punch, but only as an offhand attack.

The above is the best reason I've read for the build not working at all. I've been operating under:
but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. Could that not be taken to mean that you can treat a sheild as a weapon other than offhand? The generic shield bash treats it as an offhand. But you can enchant a shield as a weapon, and use it in the main hand. At that point you would need a houserule so the DM would have to rule. Which is what cfalcon has been saying.

If thats wrong then the answer to the OP would become no, but if you read that as simply designing a shield for combat instead of defense then... well it works. Don't care if its realistic, don't care if it has ever happened, just want to know if it works because that is all the OP asked. Actually thats just extrapolating based on what the OP asked. His first queston was would the bonuses stack, which is a confirmed no. But could he do it (it=use two shields, not stack the bonuses)? Maybe.

----Stuff relevant to the thread-jack, but perhaps not relevant to the OP----
I'm going to attempt to avoid quote-sniping.

Also: Cfalcon your biggest point is the "reality" test right? The DM has to parse reality and see what's viable. But it seems in your scenario the DM isn't putting it into the context of the characters attributes. Mr. Morons big point seemed (I've lost it in the conversation...) to be that the level of strength that someone with something like 16 strength has is enough to make it like wielding two giant sharpened razors. 16 strength is on par with... black pudding. *sigh* let's go a step up to an 18 which is a centaur or a minotaur. Superhuman in strength. At that level I could easily see someone swinging the shield around.
You know, thinking aboutit perhaps part of the dispute lies in how you are visualizing a shield. Theres a big difference between something like a kite shield design (which would be far too unwieldy), and a rotella (round shield). From the fact you said a heater shield earlier I was just thinking maybe thats part of the issue? After all, how can your DM make a good call if you think you are describing a tire swing and he thinks its a wooden single seat swing? Not the best analogy but it is decent.

Talic
2009-07-07, 04:45 AM
The rules allow you to shield punch, but only as an offhand attack. Which means that the dual wielding shield "fighter" would, by the rules, be able to forgo his shield bonus on his offhand to punch with it. He could not do the same with his mainhand. He would have no mainhand attack.Fallacy. It does not say you may only use it as an off-hand attack. As shields are listed as weapons, they follow all uses and limitations for weapons, unless explicitly contradicted by existing RAW. The rule that you "can make off hand attacks with it" in no way contradicts the general rule that players may designate primary and off-hand weapons as they choose.

And shields are listed as weapons. Shields may be enchanted as weapons. So regardless of what you'd like to believe on this, unless you can truck out specific text forbidding shields to be used as a primary attack, then the general text permitting the use of a weapon as a primary attack holds sway.


So then the next question is, does he gain a shield bonus for wielding the shield with his mainhand. By the SRD, it would seem that he does, because as long as you can "strap it to your forearm and grip it with your hand", you are presumed to be "using" it, and gain the shield bonus to AC.
Flawed conclusion based on previous flawed assertions.


Home-game-bias? It's dual wielded shields man. That's not bias. It's just so frustrating to see folks argue that it's realistic, or useful, or whatever. It's just so darned ignorant. You should *never* be able to find a game that doesn't "houserule" it, is the point. If someone doesn't do the very basics of parsing reality, you are NOT playing D&D, period, because you don't have a DM.Irrelevant to the question. Though, I find it laughable that every poor debater on this board trucks out the, "if you're not doing it MY way, it's not D&D" line. It's sad. It's tired. Please. Make it retired. D&D is a game that exists to serve the interests of many, many people. For this reason, it is made to be flexible. Any view that limits that flexibility, by stating that certain things should be carte-blanche disallowed for no reason other than you find it silly? Is contrary to the spirit of the game, as it was originally designed.


The problem then becomes that folks are implying that the rules, if they allow, it, are all that's important. But in reality, that shouldn't matter. It's like, bizzaro land, where everyone cares about the wrong thing. More amusing is that folks who want to help the OP with his idea are posting all sorts of non-RAW things to make two shields effective, but of course, no one is yelling at them.
No. Folks are applying that the rules are all that's important for the purpose of answering the OP's question concerning the rules legality of the action in question.

That's absolutely true.

"I don't like it" has no bearing on the question "Is tapioca pudding made with water?"

It's a technical question, and needs a technical answer. Putting emotion and opinion based assertations on the wisdom or the "should it" implications do not answer the question. All they do is Derail the topic, which is something even the people who are being non-RAW aren't doing.

In other words? If you're not going to discuss the topic at hand, there are a lot of other places you can go. Please stop distracting from the actual question, and answer. If you don't like it? Fine. Don't read it. Go elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you here.

But if you're going to come here, and post, at least post in a manner consistent with the topic at hand. It's just the polite thing to do.

Mr.Moron
2009-07-07, 04:57 AM
Mr. Morons big point seemed (I've lost it in the conversation...) to be that the level of strength that someone with something like 16 strength has is enough to make it like wielding two giant sharpened razors.


No. My point is that if something is fun it should barring an excellent reason allowed. In the case two-shield wielding, or whacking some with a 10lb fish they might not strictly be super-realistic but they're not going to harm the game any. Certainly if we can accept people attacking by dancing with swords, using whirlwind attack, or given enough battle experience falling from any height without any long-term damage, or [Insert Long List of Stuff] similarly unrealistic but potentially fun things aren't a big leap at all.

I suppose, a high-level barbarian head butts a wall at high levels. He can with some decent stats and a touch of char-op, get to the point where he can do enough damage to destroy a section of standard masonry wall with his head.

Certainly the DM could invoke the "Ineffective Weapons" rule, and have his head bounce off. However the would be boring instead of awesome.

Talic
2009-07-07, 05:06 AM
Your DM is probably failing, unless you are actually gaming in Kool-Aid land and the physics are different. If you are gaming in Kool-Aid land and the physics are different, your DM is probably failing for another reason.

The reason he would be failing is that it's his job to parse reality and tell you what happens. Can you find a rule saying that characters can't breathe jello? How about a rule stating that objects in motion tend to stay in motion? Does stuff fall down? Part of the job of the DM is to handle these things- most of them are trivial, but many are very important.

There is a rule that states that unless it's covered elsewhere, one should consider that the basic rules of IRL apply.

Thankfully, in this case, dual wielding and shield bashing are covered. Whew! Crisis averted there. No Jello-breathing.

Though condemning players for choosing to play the game their way? Telling others that DM's that don't support your view fail? That's pretty harsh, and probably insulting to those that enjoy a bit of silliness in their game. Try to look at things from the other side. If the DM is supposed to parse reality, then I guess conjuring fireballs from thin air and humans that can breathe water are the hallmarks of a poor DM.

Or they're sufficiently powerful demons.
Or merfolk.

Billyjoe
2009-07-07, 05:07 AM
Fallacy. It does not say you may only use it as an off-hand attack. As shields are listed as weapons, they follow all uses and limitations for weapons, unless explicitly contradicted by existing RAW. The rule that you "can make off hand attacks with it" in no way contradicts the general rule that players may designate primary and off-hand weapons as they choose.


You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.

@ Talic: So I've got a few questions that may/may not be relevant to the OP then. If the general text lets you treat it as a weapon, and the specific shield bash text says only shield bash as an offhand attack, then are you still shield bashing? If not then does the weapon damage chart apply since it seems to put shields on there because of shield bash? Am I thinking of it wrong in that shield bash simply tells you to refer to the chart, which has the general damage for a shield used as a weapon?

If you are not shield bashing then how do you treat the AC of the main hand shield?

@Mr. Moron's post. I agree that it should be allowed for sake of niftyness. I'm trying to see how it works mechanically now. If it can happen then we have to figure out how. And having it a shield bash or not would, I'd think, make a lot of difference because you then get to wonder whether imp. shield bash applies. Sorry for misinterpretting you and then quoting you on it.

Yrcrazypa
2009-07-07, 05:23 AM
Also, I'm fairly certain there are cases where a sword is wielded by the blade held in gauntleted hands.

There is, and I have seen it before, but I can't find it for the life of me. It's purpose was for smashing someone in the face with the hilt when, for whatever reason, a cutting action just wouldn't do.

Partysan
2009-07-07, 05:43 AM
You are pulling this out of your dimly lit well, the one that is so deep that the sun does not shine. Did you ask Spartans? What is it about a shield that they could hold one in their weaker hand, but not also in their stronger? Your whole argument is fictional.
Please keep in mind, that Spartan shields were quite large and, while held in the off-hand, only used to bash in specific combat situations. Most of the time, they were simply held before the body, only adjusted to block incoming attacks.
This is of course a lot less exhausting than bashing with a shield as a primary attack, which requires you to swing the large heavy thing around all the time.
By the way, I said that shields as large as from ground to throat would be too big for dual wielding them (but well, it IS possible too, but they would indeed get in the way of each other)



No evidence has been given. If you think that is combat, you are misusing the word. Nothing in the real world implies that shields were just too heavy, and swords were used instead or something. That's totally fiction. Additionally, many duels were fought with sword and buckler- why not buckler and buckler? They often had spikes and such on them, why didn't someone say, hey, forget this sword, I'm just dual shielding you down?

I think you know why. It's hard to believe you are even defending this.
None, and I repeat NO ONE, has been saying that fighting with two shields would be an optimal choice. Moreove, while a buckler is an excellent secondary weapon, it is less a shield an more a parrying weapon. Bucklers, unlike real shields, cannot be used to cover your body, you have to use them very actively.
Since a buckler-bash is a short-range attack, you'd have to penetrate the attacking range of the sword. However, a buckler does nor allow you to do this the way a shield does. Dual-wielding bucklers would be close to unarmed fighting, not to dual-shield fighting, because bucklers work totally different than shields. Bucklers do not have a passive defense capacity.
Again, shield bashes are short ranged and "shield slashes" will not exceed short sword range as well. Reach does matter a lot in combat. That is a reason why people use shields rather for defense than for primary offense. Note, that you can use bucklers together with "assassin blades" (short blades strapped to the forearm coming out from under the bucklers) and that blades can be attached to shields as well, but we are going into fictional territory here.


You wouldn't need to. You would just need to lock them in place long enough. Not that it would *prove* anything, but you could probably rig up something like this with a friend- this double shield thing *seems* like it would be trivial enough to disprove in your own mind. I'm not going to say that it would prove anything because you aren't in combat (none of us are) , you aren't trained (very few of us are), and it's not historical conditions basically- but this shouldn't be a big deal to prove to yourself.
How do you imagine pinning shields in placce works? You cannot lock away a shield with a sword or mace, because the rules of leverage dictate, that a weapon which is extended from your body will be pushed aside by a shied strapped to the forearm quite easily. Locking away a shield only works properly with a hooked weapon, e.g. an axe, to pull the shield aside and make room for a strike. And trying to keep that hooking up for a longer time would make you get hurt. hard.



It's not about stuff you don't LIKE, by the way. It's about stuff that doesn't make sense. There's plenty of crap in the game I don't like, but I try to support as much of it as I can. I went through a lot of effort to write psionics in, for instance, even though the only use I've seen of it is in heavily exploitative builds- but it offers a unique flavor and it works in the context of reality-modifying things.

Anyway, thanks for all the cleverly disguised ad-hominem.

What we are trying to prove to you here, and in my opinion have proven already, is, that two shield fighting is NOT as absurd as you think it would, not in the real world, much less in D&D



EDIT: Attacking with the pommel while gripping the blade is called "Mortsstreich" and is a historical european technique. Here are some pictures about how to defend against it, text is german but it is the first one I found.
http://www.dreynschlag.at/historisches_schwert_technik14.php
And here a historical picture from a fencing manual: http://www.thearma.org/2Talh21459.jpg

Yrcrazypa
2009-07-07, 06:21 AM
And that picture from the manual is the one that I remember seeing. But what, if I may ask, is the true advantage of that style besides a rule of cool thing done IRL?

Mordhau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordstreich) is the more anglicized name of it, and it details it slightly here.

Partysan
2009-07-07, 06:34 AM
Right, there are a few names for that.
Essentially it is about using the pommel, which is heavier than the blade, to smash a helmet, when the opponent is heavily armoured and difficult to hurt using the blade.
Since a sword is balanced slightly towards the hilt, and since a weapon is easier to wield when balanced towards the grip but more powerful when balanced towards the striking point, the Mordhau is a far more powerful attack than a normal swordstrike and can easily demolish plate armour, though not as effective as a hammer or mace.
Because of the power and the form of the grip, a Mordhau is also difficult to parry, hence the special technique seen in the pictures as an example.

cfalcon
2009-07-07, 10:38 AM
How do you imagine pinning shields in place works?

If someone has two shields and you have a shield and something that has any kind of point, you would press forward with YOUR shield, into them. Shields have a size, and especially if we are dealing with a Spartan or kite shield, and what would not be a viable tactic versus an opponent with a mainhand weapon suddenly becomes one- the double shield guy will have a hard time NOT having both his shields come in contact with your shield, and in any event you will have options he won't.

I mean, I sort of can't believe I'm arguing this, and more importantly, that there are several folks arguing that it would be effective IN REAL LIFE. I don't really have a lot more to say on the point. Please head over to a bunch of Western Martial Arts guys and ask them about this, or something.


EDIT: Attacking with the pommel while gripping the blade is called "Mortsstreich" and is a historical european technique.


Very nice, though a specialized technique in armored combat is not really a fighter running around wielding a sword like that. Note that it's one strike and not a full sequence of guards (if there's a sequence of guards like that, please let me know), but that *is* interesting. Still, you understand what I am saying.


Could that not be taken to mean that you can treat a sheild as a weapon other than offhand? The generic shield bash treats it as an offhand. But you can enchant a shield as a weapon, and use it in the main hand. At that point you would need a houserule so the DM would have to rule.

Shield bash there is the *only* method of attacking with a shield. If it is not, then the following logic makes sense:

DudeA: Ok guys, my fighter strikes once with his longsword (rolls, deals damage), and now once with his shield (rolls, deals damage).
DudeB: Hey, what's your AC this round?
DudeA: It's still 24. I didn't lose my AC from the shield because I didn't shield bash, which would negate the AC I get for the round, I just did an offhand attack with the shield!


WAIT WHAT



Shield, Heavy, Wooden or Steel

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.
Wooden or Steel

Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to special attacks.
Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.
Shield, Light, Wooden or Steel

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.
Wooden or Steel

Wooden and steel shields offer the same basic protection, though they respond differently to special attacks.
Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a light shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a light shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a light shield as a light weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.


The reason that it's on the table isn't because it's a weapon in the same way a halberd is- it's on the table as an expedient method of showing how much damage it does *with a shield bash*, which is *the only way to attack with it*. By D&D rules, shields are not weapons, they are armor that can be used to attack via the shield bash action, and otherwise grant a shield bonus to AC while they are "used" (which appears to mean held in the hand, versus strapped to your back or whatever 2ed flaw they fixed here).




Shield Spikes

When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you. You can’t put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield. Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

The wording is such that you can't attack with a shield except as an offhand attack. I agree that seems sort of strange, but it's because the rules are not written to allow you to wield a shield without a normal weapon used concurrently, much as was done in history. They only put it in the weapons columns for reference for when you are shield bashing.


And to those playing the "why are you hating on someone's ability to game they way that they want", well, I'm actually NOT. The claims I'm disputing are that there's any support for a dual wielding shield fighter, either in real life or in the game- claims they aren't making for the sake of originality. If they WERE doing that, then it would just have been, here's a feat or prestige class that lets me dual wield shields, I know it's not realistic but we play a heavily stylized game, any suggestions, etc. But clearly the attitude going on is LOOK THE RULES SAY IT IF I SKIM THEM WOO HOO!

It doesn't make sense, and everyone in this threat either knows or or needs to do more research. You could probably one day ask some of the folks who wrote the PHB, but I know full well that the attitude towards that is pretty anti. Obviously, then you would have a sanity check, which clearly some folks don't want, for whatever reason.

Hat-Trick
2009-07-07, 11:11 AM
I call Air Bud rule. It does not specifically state that the shield CANNOT be used as a primary weapon, only that it CAN be used as an off hand weapon. If it were impossible by game rules, it would say something like, "Shields cannot be as a primary weapon, and only if another weapon is wielded primarily." But it doesn't.

Partysan
2009-07-07, 01:12 PM
If someone has two shields and you have a shield and something that has any kind of point, you would press forward with YOUR shield, into them. Shields have a size, and especially if we are dealing with a Spartan or kite shield, and what would not be a viable tactic versus an opponent with a mainhand weapon suddenly becomes one- the double shield guy will have a hard time NOT having both his shields come in contact with your shield, and in any event you will have options he won't.
I don't think so. I never tried fighting with two shields before, but I would probably have one in the front and one at the side. Preferably the one in front at the side of the opponents shield, so I can use the second shield either to attack or to block the weapon, if he tries to attack around the clashing shields.


I mean, I sort of can't believe I'm arguing this, and more importantly, that there are several folks arguing that it would be effective IN REAL LIFE. I don't really have a lot more to say on the point. Please head over to a bunch of Western Martial Arts guys and ask them about this, or something.
1. I never said it would be effective (meaning: above average effective). I said it was possible. And if somone would train it for a time and was strong enough, I think it could be quite dangerous (esp. with special modded shields)
2. I AM a western martal arts guy. That's why I'm telling you that stuff.


Very nice, though a specialized technique in armored combat is not really a fighter running around wielding a sword like that. Note that it's one strike and not a full sequence of guards (if there's a sequence of guards like that, please let me know), but that *is* interesting. Still, you understand what I am saying.
AFAIK it is only that strike, not a sequence of guards. And I never said that people would run around holding the sord upside down. But they will sometimes run around holding it half-grip, meaning one hand at the blade.

You know, I feel slightly compelled to get a hold of three shields, train that stuff for a while and put up a video on youtube of some dual-shield fighting, just to show it is possible to do.
I just don't know how to get two more shields. Would you accept LARP weaponry? I know some people of whom I could borrow some. Unfortunately none of my friends have real shields.

Talic
2009-07-07, 05:43 PM
Very nice, though a specialized technique in armored combat is not really a fighter running around wielding a sword like that. Note that it's one strike and not a full sequence of guards (if there's a sequence of guards like that, please let me know), but that *is* interesting. Still, you understand what I am saying.Wrong. It represents a tactic that the initial people who saw it thought was absurd. Then it worked. Even now, you thought it was absurd, until you saw a real world example. Shows that none of us know everything. So much for *that* reality parsing, eh?


Shield bash there is the *only* method of attacking with a shield. If it is not, then the following logic makes sense:

DudeA: Ok guys, my fighter strikes once with his longsword (rolls, deals damage), and now once with his shield (rolls, deals damage).
DudeB: Hey, what's your AC this round?
DudeA: It's still 24. I didn't lose my AC from the shield because I didn't shield bash, which would negate the AC I get for the round, I just did an offhand attack with the shield!Use a shield to attack, lose its AC, unless you have the improved shield bash feat.


The reason that it's on the table isn't because it's a weapon in the same way a halberd is- it's on the table as an expedient method of showing how much damage it does *with a shield bash*, which is *the only way to attack with it*. By D&D rules, shields are not weapons, they are armor that can be used to attack via the shield bash action, and otherwise grant a shield bonus to AC while they are "used" (which appears to mean held in the hand, versus strapped to your back or whatever 2ed flaw they fixed here).Fallacy. By D&D rules, shields ARE weapons, and can be enchanted as such. If you wish to think that they're only listed as weapons for expediency, and aren't *really* weapons... You're welcome to think that. You're wrong. But you're welcome to think that.

The wording is such that you can't attack with a shield except as an offhand attack. I agree that seems sort of strange, but it's because the rules are not written to allow you to wield a shield without a normal weapon used concurrently, much as was done in history. They only put it in the weapons columns for reference for when you are shield bashing.No, the wording is such that you CAN attack with an offhand. It's permissive, not restrictive. In fact, by your logic, if you have a shield, and someone disarms your sword, you can't attack with your shield. Mmm mm, but that's good reality parsin'.

Diamondeye
2009-07-08, 12:50 AM
I've restricted my opinions to those of your views. Everything here is unneccesary. It's a valid point for me to criticize your views, wherein you don't even know how someone's going to be disruptive, or if they're going to be disruptive. You assume that if it's something out of the ordinary, they're either novelty chasing, or they're trying to be evil evil rules lawyers, and so don't even consider it (by your own statements). That's an assumption that I find paranoid and closed-minded.

If you want to cricticize my views, do so on the merits. "Paranoid and closed-minded" is thinly-disguised name-calling, and doesn't serve you well when you complain below that I consider doing this sort of thing an abuse of the rules.


I'm not. On the flip side, I've DM'd for going on 15 years. I've had my fair share of problem players. And I've distilled D&D down to a few basic common things. Fun is the foremost. If someone finds novel concepts fun, I'm not going to deny them that. Not everyone has fun the same way. So a good DM has the challenge and opportunity to bring several different people together, and craft a game where everyone gets to enjoy what they love most. Denying the less-serious player the opportunity to cut loose a little, on the grounds that you think it's silly? Perhaps that's exactly the point. Perhaps he grinds out numbers and listens to whining people on the phone all day at work, and just wants to be able to blow off steam and be a bit silly. People have all sorts of motivations for doing what they do, and you'll never know what they are unless you spend the time to learn the group.

While fascinating, your DMing resume and ideas on how to run things aren't the only way to do them. All you're doing is making the hasty generalization (a fallacy) that because I wouldn't allow a 2-shield fighter I therefore don't allow people to "cut loose a little" or whatever

Moreover, you make assumptions not only about me but about the people I play with. They don't appreciate players coming into the game and creating bizarre, silly, or absurd characters. Your little lecture on "fun", of course, assumes that my poor players are struggling along under my iron boot of restriction, but since I actually know them and play with them I can safely say you're simply attacking a strawman.


And if people are being intentionally disruptive? As a DM, there are a number of tools to handle that.

That's nice, but I really have had plenty of experience already, since I've been DMing about as long as you have and really don't need any advice.


Man-eating Treasure chests? Bears with Owl heads? Turning your hated foes into Tapioca Pudding?

Magic. This has been addressed.


Perhaps you should stop telling me what I should stop telling people then, hmm? I only point out that D&D has plenty of room for the absurd. Just because it's silly doesn't mean it doesn't have a place along all the other crazy crap that WotC has stuffed in a monster manual or list of spells.

I don't care what D&D has room for in general. In other people's games, if they want the absurd, they can have as much as they want, if that's what they consider fun. We don't, so yes, you really ought to stop telling other people how they should play. My disallowing of 2-shield fighting and general disapproval of it isn't some threat to anyone else allowing it. I am not on some crusade to get other people to ban it from their games. If that's what they want they should do it.


Really? You told us here that you'd ban two shield style, because you think it's absurd, and even if it wasn't, you'd do it because someone doing it is either someone seeking novelty or trying to break the rules, and so you'd ban it. Not that you'd hear your player out, or ask what he's trying to do. You'd summarily ban it. I only use what you've told me. And I feel it almost can go without saying that telling other people what they can't tell you is not the most stable platform. After all, in doing it, you're doing exactly what you're telling me not to.

Uh.. no, I'm not at all. I didn't tell you to ban 2-shield fighting in your games, or to do anything at all for that matter. All you're really doing is lecturing me on why I should be just like you, and I'm telling you not to do that because it comes off as arrogant and condescending. As for my player, I doubt very much any of my players would come up with this sort of thing in the first place. I haven't had to actually enforce the "no absurdity" rule in a long time - nor does anyone else when its their turn to DM.


And you could probably do without thinking that everyone trying to play a concept that you think is different is trying to showboat or abuse the system. I've played many concepts that were mechanically weak, because I liked them and they were different. And tell me, exactly what is wrong with being a little silly when playing a game? This isn't a sacred temple or a religion. It's a way to have fun. That's it. And it is what you make it. Your audience is your players, and their way of giving you a bad review is voting with their feet. Yes, the DM has control, until the players choose to walk. This is why it's good to work with players. Knowing more makes it better for everyone. If you find that view condescending or rude, well, I'm sorry you think that. But it's my view, and the beauty of the internet is that when you post something publicly, you should be accepting of honest praise, as well as honest critique.

Is my thinking that hurting you in some way? Can you really not stand the idea that somewhere out on the internet is a guy that thinks 2-shield fighting is silly?

As for what's wrong with being silly when playing a game, it's because there are other people playing with you. You keep breaking out this thing about "working with your players" as if I didn't already know that, because you assume that my players think like you - which they don't. None of us enjoy silliness, cutting up, or making purposefully absurd characters, and we put that rule in place so that new players will have an idea how to get along with everyone.

As for "honest critique", you're engaging in no such thing. You're critiquing this gaming group that you've invented in your mind where I suppress the creativity and fun of my players for.. well I don't know why, but regardless, since you're critiquing some hypothetical group, not mine, you're really not making much impact.


And my view is that one of the hallmarks of a mediator is mediation. Communication is key for that, and disallowing certain concepts just because you think they're silly? That's poor mediation. A mediator tries to see things from everyone's point of view. They're supposed to be in a position of authority because they can take 4 different players, and one world, and turn it into something that everyone wanted. That's the hallmark of a good DM. And part of giving the players what they want? Is listening to what they want, and being open to new ideas.

While fascinating, I don't see any relevance here. "The hallmark of a mediator is mediation"? We call statements like that "tautology. I'm not going to get into a discussion of overall DMing style with you, and the fact that you're trying to draw conclusions about my style, cricticize it, and then offer rather pompous advice based on only the information that I consider 2-shield fighting absurd and wouldn't allow it, to be hilarious.


I'm not. Though I'd appreciate it if you spent more time making your points, and less time telling me what I can and can't say.

I haven't told you what you can or can't do. I have, however, made the point that you're wasting your time with all this carrying on about the finer points of DMing since you're apparently cricticizing fictitious version of a game I run.


Though just because you believe it's absurd (a matter of opinion) doesn't mean that someone's trying for attention, or abusing. I could make an entirely ordinary wizard that spent half his time using Polymorph Any Object to turn chickens to commoners and commoners to chickens. Not absurd, by the earlier stated position of yours that magical effects are not absurd. But it's all about attention-getting.

In which case your wizard would quickly find himself destroyed by some more powerful force that took exception to all these commoners being turned to chickens - that is, assuming that we were playing at a level where polymorp any object was a spell you could get. Do you only play at level 15 and above? Or do you assume that you could come into my game and make a character of any level you please? Perhaps requiring players to make new characters at a certain level is evidence tht I' m "too heavy with the banhammer" or "don't let them vut loose." Maybe that means I don't "mediate" properly?


Besides, what's wrong with attention-getting? Is it bad for players acting out roles to want the spotlight? Really?

Are you really that concerned with how attention and spotlight time is divided up in my game? Players and characters get spotlight time based on their actions; not because they came up with some gimmick.


Then keep your rules in your games. If you post your views on the internet, be prepared for honest evaluation. You talk about the OP's views, but deride others from talking about yours, when they're both publically posted for the world to see. In short, I'm kinda finding your tone abrasive, if not outright rude. There's plenty of room for honest, open, friendly discussion without the posturing. If you don't want to hear my responses, then don't respond to my views. That's your right. If someone takes the time to respond to me, I try to respond to that. That's mine.

I talk about the OPs post because that's the point of the thread in the first place. As for finding my tone abusive, when the first thing you call someone's viewpoint is paranoid and absurd and then proceed to lecture them on how to properly run a D&D campaign based on a very minute point thereof - don't expect people to welcome your critique. Quite frankly, it comes off as pompous.


No matter how much you tell me what I "Maybe shouldn't say", it's not going to influence what I do say. I'll treat you with respect, but if you put forth a view publically, and I find a disagreement with it? I'll say as much. I expect no more, and no less, from anyone else.

I haven't seen any evidence of treatment with respect so far. Lecturing and condescension, especially when based on assumptions about something you're unfamiliar with (how my game runs) is really not very respectful just because you obey the forum rules on not flaming.


"His back was against the wall, and it was the only thing in arm's reach. It worked, protecting his vitals, and the broad attack of the shield kept his attackers at bay long enough for him to fight his way out. Ever since, he was intrigued with the concept of using traditionally defensive weapons in an offensive role. As he had been training in dual-wielding for some time afterwards, he decided to attempt blending the two styles."

Make no mistake. The above explanation is how martial arts styles are started. Something new works, or someone sees something being used, and then attempts to incorporate it into the style he/she already knows. MMA fighters (who certainly know more than you or I about fighting) do this regularly, incorporating moves never used before in their field to good -and innvative- effect.

The above explaination makes no sense. A player who claims his character thinks a style works well despite massive penalties (2-shield fighting) and for which no school of thought has ever developed in the thousands of years of history of the campaign world, unlike for 2 weapons (note the existance of TWF feats, but no TSF feats)

No, shields are not weapons either. Note they have entries of "special" on the weapons chart; that's because shields are armor. Only spiked shields can have weapon enchantments, but regardless, being on the weapons chart does not, by itself, make an object a weapon since the spike is only a modification of a normal shield. They do that so they don't have a separate chart for "things that aren't weapons per se but are used in fights a lot to cause damage". Page count matters in publishing, and trying to claim that concise presentation is a form of RAW is disingenuous at best.


Fighting is sometimes about using tactically powerful moves to win.
Sometimes, it's about using techniques that exploit a weakness in an opponent (fire for trolls, etc).
Other times? The unexpected can be effective because it's unexpected. In early UFC, Joyce Gracie swept more than one tournament versus strikers and traditional wrestlers, because nobody knew how to handle Jiu-jitsu, or his Brazilian style of it.

While fascinatiing, the fact of the matter is that novelty does not inherently make something effective. Sometimes the new and different works, sometimes not. I don't believe the "new and different" worked as expected in Operation Market-Garden. Driving our tanks backwards into the REpublican Guard in 1991 would certainly have been unexpected, but I doubt it would have improved combat effectiveness. Neither would a new style of martial arts done entirely from a handstand.


He came back years later, and got destroyed, by people who DID know Jiu-Jitsu, and defended against it. New styles get invented, tried, and those things that work, continue. But it all happens because someone trains.

Just because someone trains in a style does not make it necessarily effective. Obviously proper training makes good styles work, but it does not overcome the deficiencies of a bad method.

By your logic, nobody should ever dual wield, because they'd start off with massive mechanical penalties. Why then, would someone ever train to the point of eliminating those penalties and being good with the weapon?


That's what training is. Taking something you're bad at, and becoming good.

Perhaps you wonder why I keep pointing out that your tone is condescending? This is why. Training is a word in common use; I know perfectly well what it means.


There's always a first. You call that first "absurd", much as people called Christopher Columbus a lunatic, for venturing a new theory.

Which new theory would that be? Columbus did not come up with the idea that the world was round; in fact he seriously underestimated its diameter.

In any case, many new ideas are quite absurd. Maybe you should read about the
XF-85 Goblin. This tiny aircraft was certainly new and different, but really the idea was absurd, which testing thankfully bore out before any pilots tried to take this thing into combat.


There's a difference between "absurd" and "pioneer". There's always a first.
Search threads. It's been brought up before, both here and at WotC boards.

See above regarding condescension. In any case, yes. Chuck Yeager was a pioneer; that does not make every aircraft he was involved with a good idea.. the Goblin being a prime example.


I'd also appreciate you not refer to proponents of this as people who abuse rules. You don't want us sticking our fingers in your game without knowing about it? Grant us the same courtesy.

I haven't stuck my fingers into your games at all. If you show up and do this in my game, it's an abuse of the game rules, and of the house rules. If you do it somewhere else and the DM allows it.. it's none of my buisness. I don't know why you insist on reading cricticism of other's playstyles into my description of my own.


I'd feel an affinity to anything that got me a "W". Tactically sound or not. You'll see world class poker players who play 3-5 offsuit in Texas Hold Em. Not because it's a good hand; it's horrible. But because it's won for them in the past. People remember their victories, and the emotion from it affects their decisions. Even if it's not the most tactically optimal choice.
So Daniel Negranu metagames life then.

If you keep doing something tactically unsound in combat, you will lose, badly, and soon, even if you get lucky and it works the first time. This is why people obtain proper training for combat, in methods that have been proven effective through repeated use. People do not go off and start training in whatever idea strikes their fancy; new techniques are invented after careful thought by people of great experience who understand fundamental principles.


Ever been in a warzone? I have. Those that risk their life on a daily basis tend to be rather superstitious. Regardless of whether or not it "makes sense" to your reasoning.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have been in a combat theater. I'm not interested in comapring DD-214s with you.

I will, however, point out that we have things like "standards" and "doctrine" for "those who risk their life on a daily basis", and that while some of them may be superstitious, they don't decide on tactics, techniques, and procedures based on superstition. Maybe I missed something in my military education though. Perhaps you could point to the field manual or Army regulation covering superstition? I'm not familiar with it. I don't recall it being in the Field Artillery Officer Basic Course, Airborne Course, Nuclear-Biological-Chemical Defense Course, Unit Movement Course, Anti-terrorism levl I or II course, Physical Security Manager's Course, MNC-I Counterinsurgency course, or the Captain's Career Course. Maybe I'll learn about it in CGSC.


And that's where you're being closed minded. You're only as old as you feel, man. Sometimes, it feels good to let the inner child out, a bit. Go to a waterpark. Ride a rollercoaster. No, it's not the most optimal use of your time and money.

Dude, seriously. You are really reading way too much into this. Because I wouldn't let someone fight with 2 shields in a D&D game I advice on how to spend money in a less-than-optimal way to improve my leisure time?

Wow...

Set
2009-07-08, 01:13 AM
My apologies if this has already been mentioned upthread and I missed it in my glance over the first page...

Green Ronin's Plot & Poison has a few feats like Shield Specialization and Double Shielding that allow one to a) make a Shield Bash and then re-ready one's shield to regain shield bonus as a Free Action, and b) use two Shields and get the defensive bonuses from each.

It also has a 'Mithral Carapace' fighting style which requires the character to take a butt-load of feats (including Two-Weapon Fighting and the above two, obviously) to qualify for, but then gives the character the ability to count any enhancement bonus for one's shield as a *weapon* enhancement bonuses for attack and damage purposes.

Given the relatively low damage numbers of a shield bash (or shield spike, or bladed shield), the feat requirements and the equally unimpressive AC boost that one gets from carrying a second shield, I'd be absolutely fine with allowing these 3rd party rules.

It didn't hurt that the picture rocked, of a plate-clad dark elf leaping into action with a medium shield on each arm. If a shield-as-a-weapon is good enough for Captain America, it's good enough for me, and, as Drizzt / Neo / etc. would say, if one scimitar / Uzi / etc. is cool, then *two* (no matter how unwieldly or impractical) is even cooler!

Hat-Trick
2009-07-08, 01:16 AM
The point is that even if it's "absurd", it doesn't make a character who uses it a "gimmick." I'd have a lot of fun with a character with two shields and use it for a whole campaign, maybe even resurrect it in a later one. That is, unless the character dies. Then I'd try something else and go back to the drawing board with the design to make it viable. The only reason the character would get a lot of spotlight is if you always put it there, or the player takes it, and I'm pretty sure that won't happen after he proves his effectiveness, then he becomes a Bunny Eared Laywer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BunnyEarsLawyer). Sure he's a bit odd, but he works. And in adventuring, that's mostly all that counts. He'd get the same amount of spotlight as the Orc rogue or Minotaur monk, or any other slightly off combination.

And as said many times before, he'd hardly break anything.

cfalcon
2009-07-08, 01:25 AM
Wrong. It represents a tactic that the initial people who saw it thought was absurd.

Source? Note that my example was originally written "holding a sword upside down"- I was picturing an unarmored man holding a sword at the tip with both hands, in a guard position. That's still absurd. Do note the origin of this unrelated tangent.

So much for *that* reality parsing, eh?
No, it would have worked fine- the thing I was describing didn't get enough words, because it wasn't important. If a player attempted to pull that move there, I would not have laughed at him, because he would be wearing gauntlets. It would still be very difficult to model in D&D correctly, because unlike 1ed, we don't have the armor type versus weapon table any more.



Use a shield to attack, lose its AC, unless you have the improved shield bash feat.
Fallacy. By D&D rules, shields ARE weapons, and can be enchanted as such.

No, it's not a fallacy! If it is, then logically you should never use the "shield bash" action and lose your AC bonus temporarily, you should just *attack*. The part about enchanting it is to note that if you have a +4 shield, it would need a separate enchant to actually have an enhancement bonus to hit and damage.


In fact, by your logic, if you have a shield, and someone disarms your sword, you can't attack with your shield. Mmm mm, but that's good reality parsin'.

Not by my logic- though it's entirely possible that by the RAW that's the case. You are mixing my quote about the DM parsing reality with a seperate thread where I show that you can't, by the RAW, attack mainhanded with a shield.

TrashCondor2
2009-07-13, 03:52 AM
Well, I've read a fair share of all the posts on page 1 and page 5. Personally I don't think of the idea of two-shield wielding as absurd. It is not entirely unheard of, but it never became a prominent practice - the reason not relating to its efficiency in helping people stay protected, but in the efficiency helping kill other people. But some bodyguards would fight with two-shields (usually in combination with more offensive orientated bodyguards); the two-shield wielders being specifically tasked with keeping their charge safe under all circumstances.

Thus if a character attempts to fight with two shields it wouldn't be surprising if he or she isn't nearly as effective as other melee classes at dealing damage; but should in return be quite capable at defending himself or herself.

I think it is viable to make the following list of points in response to the opening post, based on RAW:


Multiple shields do not give stacking shield bonuses
Shields can be used to shield bash as an off hand attack
Shields can be used as improvised weapons at a -4 penalty to attack (including main-hand attacks)
A shield used as an improvised weapon does not convey AC bonuses - as it is a weapon and not a shield at that point in time (meaning that round)
Two-weapon defense can be applied, but only when both shields are used as weapons in a turn (as improvised weapons or in the form of a shield bash)
When fighting with both shields in a defensive capacity (thus using neither shield in an offensive way) the character qualifies for (partial) cover, gaining +2 to AC and +1 to reflex saves


On a separate note: the Mordshau (or Mordsstreich) isn't a singular or insular strike. During medieval times it became part of a (German) swordsman's repertoire to use his (or her) weapon in ways maximizing its efficiency.

It is difficult deal damage to a well-armored knight with a sword blade, heavy armor being quite effective at preventing slashing based damage. The pommel of a sword, however, can act as a bludgeoning weapon - nearly as effective as a warhammer. Correspondingly, if necessary, a swordsman would wield his (or her) sword inverted as an improvised warhammer to effectively combat a heavily armored adversary. As German swordsmanship of the time explicitly trained for this eventuality such swords(wo)men can be considered proficient with the inverted sword.

To put it in DnD mechanical terms, it is as if your opponent with heavy armor has DR5/bludgeoning, and you can chose to fight with a 1d8 sword, or a 1d6 hammer (at a -4 penalty to attack, unless proficient with this style of fighting).