PDA

View Full Version : weapon as a shield



Geiger Counter
2010-03-09, 11:18 PM
If you are holding two daggers you can spend a feat to get you an extra point of armor. However holding an oversized greatsword while a creature attacks you grants you no defense whatsoever.

Caphi
2010-03-09, 11:19 PM
You're busy attacking with the sword, aren't you?

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-09, 11:23 PM
If you are holding two daggers you can spend a feat to get you an extra point of armor. However holding an oversized greatsword while a creature attacks you grants you no defense whatsoever.

Because when you have two weapons you have two things to swing and block instead of one. The enemy has two weapons to contend with instead of one.

lvl 1 sharnian
2010-03-09, 11:23 PM
Greatswords aren't always zanbatos...

Mike_G
2010-03-09, 11:23 PM
If you are holding two daggers you can spend a feat to get you an extra point of armor. However holding an oversized greatsword while a creature attacks you grants you no defense whatsoever.


You can fight defensively.

Two Weapons Defense assumes you are using one of those daggers primarily as a parrying weapon. If you use your greatsword primarily for parrying, what are you attacking with?

That would seem to be either Fighting Defensively, sacrificing attack for defense (which can be improved with Combat Expertise) or All Out Defense if you are just parrying with it.

Glimbur
2010-03-09, 11:38 PM
It's easier to use a shield as a weapon. It's tricky to RAW wield a shield in two hands though, which is nice for power attacking with.

ericgrau
2010-03-09, 11:41 PM
I'd assume that you're always parrying, dodging and so forth, but that would add many more rules and tables to the system when it already has enough. More likely the two weapon defense feat represents your ability to defend yourself better than you could with only 1 weapon.

Rhyvurg
2010-03-09, 11:57 PM
If you mean Two Weapon Defense feat tree from Complete Warrior, you can use both weapons to fight to full effect and still get the shield bonus to your AC, though you do get a greater benefit from fighting defensively or using total defense. But, you're not "using one weapon to parry", you're still fighting with it and getting the shield bonus. And if you look at, for example, a greataxe, the head is roughly the same size as a buckler, so why can't you hold it sideways and get a small measure of cover from it? Yeah, a greatsword isn't as wide as a zweihander, but what it lacks in width it makes up for in length, so why can't you benefit from that? And then there's fullblades, they're plenty big, a skinny little elf could probably get full cover from one of those. The idea is not without merit. I even made a homebrew class once for fighters that did just that, they got a +2 shield bonus to AC when using a two-handed weapon, it was gained at character level 12.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-10, 12:20 AM
There's also the Defending (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#defending) magic weapon quality as well as the Combat Expertise feat (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatExpertise).

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-03-10, 08:06 AM
You could always just ask the dm nicely to let you refluff an animated shield to be a seperate enhancement on your blade so you get 3 AC for the cost of a +3 shield and you can progress from there buying more +'s or enchantments. I'm always trying to get this by in one form or another because animated shield is a great choice for an item but I hate the image of a shield floating around for most characters.

Cyclocone
2010-03-10, 08:16 AM
You could be a Warblade and use Wall of Blades to block with your attack-roll.

The Deej
2010-03-10, 09:02 AM
But, you're not "using one weapon to parry", you're still fighting with it and getting the shield bonus. And if you look at, for example, a greataxe, the head is roughly the same size as a buckler, so why can't you hold it sideways and get a small measure of cover from it? Yeah, a greatsword isn't as wide as a zweihander, but what it lacks in width it makes up for in length, so why can't you benefit from that? And then there's fullblades, they're plenty big, a skinny little elf could probably get full cover from one of those. The idea is not without merit. I even made a homebrew class once for fighters that did just that, they got a +2 shield bonus to AC when using a two-handed weapon, it was gained at character level 12.

The one sort of caveat I see with this is that 2-handers are inherently big and heavy, so they can't be wielded nearly as nimbly as 1-handers or light weapons. I think the whole idea was 'big heavy weapon breaks through armor easier'. Trying to hit with it then immediately bringing it into a position to parry is just not that plausible IMO. You'd have to hold a lot back, but as pointed out already, that's best represented by fighting defensively. And using an axe for a shield? That's like putting your buckler on a pole that juts out from your arm and still trying to use it to protect that side of your body. It's way too awkward, and your opponent could easily just shift a bit and hit you as though it's not even there. I'll admit that I can imagine one or two blows being parried every so often, but that wouldn't be enough to merit a shield bonus to AC, just some RP flavor explaining why he missed that time.

Spiryt
2010-03-10, 09:37 AM
The one sort of caveat I see with this is that 2-handers are inherently big and heavy, so they can't be wielded nearly as nimbly as 1-handers or light weapons. I think the whole idea was 'big heavy weapon breaks through armor easier'. Trying to hit with it then immediately bringing it into a position to parry is just not that plausible IMO. You'd have to hold a lot back, but as pointed out already, that's best represented by fighting defensively. And using an axe for a shield? That's like putting your buckler on a pole that juts out from your arm and still trying to use it to protect that side of your body. It's way too awkward, and your opponent could easily just shift a bit and hit you as though it's not even there. I'll admit that I can imagine one or two blows being parried every so often, but that wouldn't be enough to merit a shield bonus to AC, just some RP flavor explaining why he missed that time.

Depends how you look at it - If someone just plays "standard D&D sumthin" and also treats weapon weights literally, that may be it.

But realistically, the reason for two handed weapons was often (not always, certainly not in case of really long polearms for example), among other things, to be more precise and nimble. Controlling with two hands.

Solid long axe, poleaxe, or longsword would be definetely better thing to defend oneself than akward combination of two swords for example.

One could just use the feat that grants better defense when using two handed weapons.

But since 2HW are anyway much better choice than TWF, and AC works so bad in 3.5 that some of the checked, solid melee builds keep it really low and doesn't bother (Shock Trooper...) it probably won't be good thing to do anyway.

Dyllan
2010-03-10, 10:00 AM
When fighting with one weapon, every attack leaves you open to a counter attack, as your weapon ends up out of a defensive position. Now if you're good at what you do, youalso leave your opponent out of a position to take advantage of that opening, but that's what the rest of your AC is about.

When fighting with two weapons, the one you swing offensively may be out of position to defend, but the other isn't. It's much harder to find an opening against two weapons than against one, for exactly that reason. Two weapon fighting is simply a more defensive combat style, in real life, than one large two-handed weapon. Of course, it's also harder to learn, but that's why it requires feats.

Nidogg
2010-03-10, 12:39 PM
Im prtty sure thers some kind of trippy sheild sword which provides AC bonus but it may be in some really obscure soucebook. Which councidently gives rules for gnomish Subs!.

John Campbell
2010-03-10, 01:39 PM
The one sort of caveat I see with this is that 2-handers are inherently big and heavy, so they can't be wielded nearly as nimbly as 1-handers or light weapons.
On the contrary, two-handed weapons are faster and more nimble than one-handed weapons of similar profile (I.e., comparing a claymore to an arming sword, not to a rapier). A sword is a speed-multiplying lever arm; that effect increases with length, and the leverage advantage of having two hands separated on the hilt instead of just one far outweighs the increased rotational inertia that comes with that and the increased mass.


I think the whole idea was 'big heavy weapon breaks through armor easier'. Trying to hit with it then immediately bringing it into a position to parry is just not that plausible IMO.
It's implausible with a light weapon, but two-handed weapons generally have significant length advantages, which means they provide coverage over a much greater area. Where you would have to jerk a light weapon back quickly after an attack to block with it, you can quite practically have a two-handed weapon in both places at once.

I'm an SCA heavy fighter of fifteen years experience. I've fought sword-and-board, greatsword, and polearm extensively (I've fought two-weapon, too, but never crossed that critical line where the off-hand weapon stops being a narrow shield that you occasionally awkwardly attack with, and becomes a weapon equal to the primary), and pole is my primary fighting style these days. I have a quite a few blows in my repertoire that are explicitly designed so that the same motion that drives the polearm blade into my target simultaneously brings the haft of the pole into position to block the natural counterattack. Greatswords don't have as much haft to work with, but quillions are very handy things...


You'd have to hold a lot back, but as pointed out already, that's best represented by fighting defensively. And using an axe for a shield?
Works quite well, in fact.

A lot of attacks against pole weapons - any weapons, really - are designed to come in along the length of the weapon, parallel to its length. This makes them difficult to block with the weapon. If you've got a wide axe blade sticking out from your weapon, these attacks are basically pre-blocked with no effort on your part. Your opponent has to go out of his way to attack around the axe head.

It's a similar effect to that of quillions on a greatsword - and I long ago lost count of the number of times the quillions on my greatsword saved me from attacks I had no other means of parrying.


That's like putting your buckler on a pole that juts out from your arm and still trying to use it to protect that side of your body. It's way too awkward, and your opponent could easily just shift a bit and hit you as though it's not even there. I'll admit that I can imagine one or two blows being parried every so often, but that wouldn't be enough to merit a shield bonus to AC, just some RP flavor explaining why he missed that time.
Counterintuitively, shields provide more coverage when they're further away from your body. If you think of your opponent's possible lines of attack as, roughly, a cone with the pointy end at their shoulder, you can see that intersecting that cone with your shield further out - closer to your opponent, and to the point those attack lines all radiate out from - lets you intercept a greater proportion of the cone with the same size shield. Taken to the logical extreme, this implies simply pinning his weapon to his shoulder with your shield - and it becomes obvious that there's very little he can do to effectively attack you in that situation. Anything he might try to do with his weapon is already blocked. Of course, if your "shield" is actually your weapon, that also ties it up, so the question then becomes which of you has friends in reach.

Shifting is of little use - it takes more time and much more energy to shift your entire body around someone's guard than it takes them to adjust their guard to follow you. Circling an opponent just tires you out to no purpose. (This is not to say that sideways movement is useless... nor is moving straight in and out, but it's far, far better to combine them so that you're moving at oblique angles relative to your opponent.)

That said, there are distinct advantages to having two implements to block with. The real question is not why two-weapon fighters can get an additional AC bonus, but why unarmed fighters who have neither weapon nor shield to block with don't take a massive penalty on their AC. (Okay, yeah, it's possible to parry a sword with an open hand without getting hurt. I actually did it once. But I don't really consider that a practical solution - I don't ever want to have to find out if I can do it twice.)

Spiryt
2010-03-10, 01:53 PM
It's implausible with a light weapon, but two-handed weapons generally have significant length advantages, which means they provide coverage over a much greater area. Where you would have to jerk a light weapon back quickly after an attack to block with it, you can quite practically have a two-handed weapon in both places at once.


Not to mention that longer weapons can produce leverage to deflect attacks even if very quick and short motion is required.

And generally, protecting yourself from axe or staff with knife is certainly possible but not very save thing to do.

Shortening distance and going grapple is much better solution with knife - and then free hand may be very useful.

But that's off top.

AtopTheMountain
2010-03-10, 02:24 PM
I always figured that this was part of what the Dexterity bonus to AC was. It's not just dodging -- it helps you parry better, which is also explained by why you get a smaller bonus; the heavy armor on your arms impedes your arms' mobility (not just your dodging).

But I'm not a fighter, so I could be wrong.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-10, 02:38 PM
Not quite the idea, but the Shield Sling feat in PH2 is very nice. Gives you a 20ft range increment with a light or heavy shield, and allows you to make a Trip Attempt at ranged. Considering you can enchant Shield Spikes and the Shield itself separately, it's very easy to optimize this.

Zombimode
2010-03-10, 02:39 PM
The max dex on armors in 3e never made much sense.

lsfreak
2010-03-10, 02:39 PM
Trying to hit with it then immediately bringing it into a position to parry is just not that plausible IMO.

Actually, from all the videos of Western-style fighting I've seen, many/most strikes begin as parries. You parry and use that position to attempt your own strike. Parrying and striking are often two parts of a single movement.

Basically, it comes down to "D&D is a game, and one that often sacrifices realism for gamism or Rule of Cool." That's the only real explanation for many of the mechanics.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-03-10, 04:41 PM
OP there is a shield halberd in one 3rd party book (Ultimate Equipment Guide) that IIRC gives you a slight AC bonus normally and you could opt to use it as a Tower Shield. Quite implausible and silly idea ( the image looks out of a battle manga)

AslanCross
2010-03-10, 05:07 PM
PHB2: The Weapon Supremacy feat gives you a +1 to AC when wielding your chosen weapon, among many other things. Problem is it's a Lv 18 feat, so the things it gives are kind of inconsequential by the time you get them.

Hand_of_Vecna
2010-03-10, 06:39 PM
All real world combat arguments aside I think the best option mechanically is still refluffing animated shield to be something less silly than an animated shield like the swords hilt letting you spin really fast. Mechanically animated shield is a great option for the price of a +3 shield you get +3 AC so your down by just two points just like at level one. You can even procede to take feats like shield specialization and shield ward if you want to invest further.

Thurbane
2010-03-10, 08:15 PM
You might chose to houserule an additional point or so of AC bonus when fighting defensively with a two handed weapon?