(PF) Random Shield related question

[koeldflare]

Hey guys, just a (somewhat) random question here. I'm looking at making a character in an upcoming game that focuses on shields...like A LOT. What I was looking at doing was having the guy essentially run around in plate and bash people in the face with a shield.

Now here comes the "dilemma". I want my character to have a shield in both his hands, with the intent of using one for bashing and the other for actually defending himself. I know this probably isn't the most optimal idea, but lets just run with it. When I ran this by one of the other players I game with they mentioned that you can't do that. I can't find anything in the rules that deny the ability to have 2 shields, and they can't seem to remember where this ruling was.

So my question to the playground is this: Can a character have 2 shields equipped at the same time?

[Bhaakon]

I don't know of any rules specifically prohibiting it, but normal shield bash rules specifically refer to shields bashes as an off-hand attacks. However, shields can be employed as improvised weapons, and improvised weapon can be used in your main hand (and there are feats to make wielding improvised weapons more viable), so it should be possible. The biggest problem I see is that I don't believe improvised weapon can be enchanted, so you'd be stuck with a mundane weapon in your main hand forever.

[MeeposFire]

Yes though it does not add any extra defense intrinsically. It is rather good though. Take shield mastery. Make your primary shield a +5 bashing spiked shield with whatever you want on the attack side. Then take the two weapon fighting feats and power attack. Shield mastery removes all penalties so no two weapon fighting penalties, imp and greater two weapon fighting are at all FULL BAB (no penalties remember), and no power attack penalties. It is actually good at two weapon fighting.

Shields are martial weapons so they are not improvised weapons. It is expected that they are off hand but they are not limited to that. Heck you can wield a heavy shield as a weapon in two hands.

[stack]

Note that the no power attack penalty is probably not RAI and may not fly with your DM.

[DarkestKnight]

I've done a bit of looking into shields for one of my characters and there are some significant up and downs to going shield happy.

1:the feats are hit and miss. there are some awesome shield feats, like Shield Ward which lets your shield bonus apply to everything (touch, grapple checks, etc) but flat footed ac. others, usually the prereqs, aren't, like the feat where you pick 1 shield type (tower, heavy, etc) and you get +1 shield bonus on it. now im not saying that +1 to ac is bad, but it seems a little bit of a bum pick to me.

2: while you can dual wield shields, you cannot garner a higher ac due to the shield bonus' won't stack (theres an exception to this, i'll get to it later) but the penalty's will stack. Boo.

so those are some of the problems ahead, but here is some good news.

1: you can definitely wield a shield in each hand, no rules problems there.
2: wearing a shield on each arm will let you retain some shield ac when bashing. however if you take Improved shield bash, then don't worry about this.
3: get funky shields for the win! In oriental adventures there's a bit of armor called a Dastana. its effectively a buckler that stacks with all shield bonuses. get it, enchant it up, get more ac!
4: defending weapons are your friend! if you plan on beating people with your board, take a defending weapon so you can add its modifier to your ac. your likely not going to be attacking with it anyways.
5: you can get some odd combos with your feats, that should either make people laugh or cry. taking the sling shield feat and shield slam feat means you can throw your shield (remember to make it a throwing and returning weapon if you like this idea) have it hit someone and possibly cause them to be dazed. this also works well with bloodstorm blade. Captain America anyone?

now for my upcoming campaign im playing a massively armored high fantasy knight.
im going into argent fist 2 (from faiths of ebberon) as well as being a vassal of bahamut 1 (spelled that wrong, don't care) and a 1 drop into paladin and monk. im taking a tower shield and a dastana. this means that without any enchantments my ac looks like:
Base 10 + 8 (armor) + 1 (shield: Dastana) + 4 (tower) +wis mod +dex mod (max of 6)=23+dex+wis (i haven't rolled stats yet).
and im taking some of these shield feats, and am looking forward to just stopping anyone who gets near. Hopefully this helps, and if not, at least it's new avenues of thought to pursue.

also what book is shield mastery in? i can't find it.

[Siosilvar]

2: while you can dual wield shields, you cannot garner a higher ac due to the shield bonus' won't stack (theres an exception to this, i'll get to it later) but the penalty's will stack. Boo.

This.

So it's best to optimize the shields for different things.

Offensive shield: +1 bashing heavy shield with +X spikes (spikes are enchanted separately as a weapon) for a 2d6-damage one-handed weapon.

Defensive shield: +Y light shield with +Z defending/parrying/whatever spikes. Light shield is recommended so that you have a free hand to do whatever with.

If you're using augment crystals from the MIC I think you can put one crystal on each shield and then one crystal on each set of spikes.
-----
Note that since the shield bonuses don't stack, Improved Shield Bash does pretty much nothing for you except feat qualification.

Of course, you could always get two bashing shields and TWF with them, which sounds AWESOME.

[erikun]

So my question to the playground is this: Can a character have 2 shields equipped at the same time?
Yes. Unless your game has the mechanics of a video game, there is no law of the universe preventing you from holding one shield in each hand.

Most people who have trouble with the idea are probably reading the rules for shield bashing (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#shieldBashAttacks), namely the "You can bash an opponent with a light shield or heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon" bit, and assuming that you need some other kind of weapon (like a sword) in the other hand in order to hit someone in the face with your shield. That feels rather silly to me, but you could end up with a DM who is rather silly.

I rather liked my character running around with a spiked bashing shield with a locked gauntlet, swinging it around two-handed to get the most mileage from Power Attack. That probably isn't the most optimal solution - a bashing shield for offense and an animated defending shield for defense is probably better - but it was fun regardless.

As others have pointed out, using two shields does not increase your AC. (You use whichever is higher.)

[Xtomjames]

In both Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 the rules surrounding having more than one shield is arguable actually as to AC stack. The rules that state that a shield bonus doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus is written with two points of presumption: one that a person is only using a single shield, and two the other effects are magical or supernatural in nature. The same goes for the AC section that states pretty much the same thing. In this sense for example, the spell Shield which grants a Shield bonus of +4 to ac wouldn't stack with a normal shield. Just as force armor or mage armor doesn't stack with normal armor.

The key wording on page 149 for Shields however is that it doesn't include "item" in the line. "Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn't stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus." (PF Core Rulebook pager 149 under armor). Thus, in all technicality multiple shields stack in AC. Where the shield won't stack with magical, supernatural, or extraordinary abilities that grant a shield bonus, physical shields will stack in the AC bonus line.

Further shields can be made to be weapons. A chakram shield is a solid (not hollow chakram) that is large, it can't be thrown but the edge of the shield is sharpened and it deals 2d8 slashing damage with 19-20 x2 critical range. It also provides +4 shield bonus. It can be used as an exotic weapon. Two of these shields count both as a shield and weapon in both hands. Two tower shields can provide complete cover as well and be used as Bashing weapons in both hands without penalty. Spiked shields work in the same sense.

One of my favorite characters is a true tank character, a Thri-kreen fighter with levels in psi-warrior and has construct grafts (construct arms) to have a total of six arms. He has four tower shields which surround him on all sides, and he gains a +16 shield bonus.

[DarkestKnight]

While the wording does not actually include items, it does say that shields follow the same manner as armor, which doesn't allow multiple bonuses from items or effects (the sentence before your citation) . as well the glossary in the players handbook under shield bonus says "Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses" which pretty clear. however i always accept DM ruling, so if it was said to be okay, it's okay. i have no problem with a 6 armed thri-keen carrying around a steel wall.

[DeMouse]

Just take a few levels in one of the fighter archetypes that lest you alternate bashes and main hand attacks for each other, that should shut up any pedantic DMs.

[Xtomjames]

While the wording does not actually include items, it does say that shields follow the same manner as armor, which doesn't allow multiple bonuses from items or effects (the sentence before your citation) . as well the glossary in the players handbook under shield bonus says "Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses" which pretty clear. however i always accept DM ruling, so if it was said to be okay, it's okay. i have no problem with a 6 armed thri-keen carrying around a steel wall.

Yes, but we're talking about Pathfinder, not D&D 3.5. There is no such quote in the glossary of the core rule book for shields. The only entry for shields is on page 149. As quoted, it says Similarly, not the same as. Thus under Pathfinder rules shield bonuses stack.

[Bhaakon]

Yes, but we're talking about Pathfinder, not D&D 3.5. There is no such quote in the glossary of the core rule book for shields. The only entry for shields is on page 149. As quoted, it says Similarly, not the same as. Thus under Pathfinder rules shield bonuses stack.

From the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Bonus-Shield-):


Shield bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other shield bonuses

[DarkestKnight]

Yes, but we're talking about Pathfinder, not D&D 3.5.
you know, i keep forgetting that the pathfinder threads are in with the DnD forums, which would also explain the (pf) that i hadn't noticed earlier. My bad guys, i thought it was a 3.5 question, i'll just be leaving now...

[Blisstake]

Yes though it does not add any extra defense intrinsically. It is rather good though. Take shield mastery. Make your primary shield a +5 bashing spiked shield with whatever you want on the attack side. Then take the two weapon fighting feats and power attack. Shield mastery removes all penalties so no two weapon fighting penalties, imp and greater two weapon fighting are at all FULL BAB (no penalties remember), and no power attack penalties. It is actually good at two weapon fighting.

Shields are martial weapons so they are not improvised weapons. It is expected that they are off hand but they are not limited to that. Heck you can wield a heavy shield as a weapon in two hands.

Actually, the quick text (on the feat table) for Shield Mastery says "No Two Weapon penalties when attacking with a shield." I imagine this means it does not affect Power Attack, even if the specific text doesn't mention that.

[MeeposFire]

Actually, the quick text (on the feat table) for Shield Mastery says "No Two Weapon penalties when attacking with a shield." I imagine this means it does not affect Power Attack, even if the specific text doesn't mention that.

Doesn't matter text trumps table and it says

You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

So power attack is fine by RAW. you can always houserule if you want.

Also even with the table description you can still get full BAB on off hand attacks from imp and greater two weapon fighting (since those give you extra attacks for two weapon fighting with a penalty).

[Blisstake]

I thought specific trumped general though. Don't take any two weapon penalties is more specific than don't take any penalties. Also, since "penalty" is such a broad term that will cover far more circumstances than is reasonable, I think it's safe to assume they simply forgot to add "two weapon" in front of penalty. I can't think of any other reason the table text wouldn't match the feat description.

If you allow it that way, you suffer no penalties that would be caused from magic, enemy abilities, the sickened/frightened condition, power attack, combat expertise, and a wide number of other ways to get a penalty to hit. It seems about as ridiculous as saying 3.5 monks aren't proficient in unarmed strikes (which, technically, they weren't in 3.5).

[MeeposFire]

I thought specific trumped general though. Don't take any two weapon penalties is more specific than don't take any penalties. Also, since "penalty" is such a broad term that will cover far more circumstances than is reasonable, I think it's safe to assume they simply forgot to add "two weapon" in front of penalty. I can't think of any other reason the table text wouldn't match the feat description.

If you allow it that way, you suffer no penalties that would be caused from magic, enemy abilities, the sickened/frightened condition, power attack, combat expertise, and a wide number of other ways to get a penalty to hit. It seems about as ridiculous as saying 3.5 monks aren't proficient in unarmed strikes (which, technically, they weren't in 3.5).

Text trumps table every time (barring errata and the like of course). That is why rainbow warsnakes get full caster levels by RAW as a famous example.

Yes I do know it goes that far. The feat is broadly worded. It is a text book case of a feat that was poorly thought out when written (either that or a much more powerful warrior feat than we normally see in paizo). As written it is a very useful feat that makes for an interesting and powerful weapon style. If it isn't broad it is worth very little (certainly not worth the cost of the prerequisites or the feat itself).

Also about every natural weapon using class and prc in 3.5 that is not from core is not proficient with their natural weapons (assuming you are a humanoid). Totemists are not proficient with their natural weapons. I think they forgot that they mentioned proficiency for natural weapons a few times in the core books (a holdover from 3.0 in my opinion) and just never bothered after that. Ridiculous

[Blisstake]

Text trumps table every time

Just wondering, where does it say that? It's probably somewhere obvious that I just missed.

[MeeposFire]

Not sure where it is located in PF but here is an instance where they reference it on the PF OGC

"Errata
Question: Bloatmage Bloat ability - the chart says it goes from 1d4 to 2d4 to 3d4. Text says 1d4 to 1d8 to 1d12. Text trumps by default, but I thought I'd ask (1d12 is much wickeder).

After discussing this with James, we like the 1d4/1d8/1d12 option in the text better, as it makes bloating a little more risky for the reckless character--which makes the class more appealing if you're a player who likes to take risks.

Note that if you play the class carefully, you'll probably never rage if you use your bloat ability. But sometimes an adventure requires you to push yourself a little harder than you'd planned....

(We're both pretty sure that the original idea was 1d4/2d4/3d4, and that we had a discussion very similar to the one we just had, and that resulted in the body text change to 1d4/1d8/1d12, but we accidentally didn't update the table.)

-Sean K Reynolds (07/09/2010)"

Found here http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/a-b/bloatmage

So it must be said somewhere since they reference it.

[Blisstake]

Huh, interesting.

Well, I would have to recommed asking your DM about this. It's one of those few cases where two sources of information in the same book directly oppose eachother. If your DM is on board with it allowing power attack, then by all means, go double shield (Just make sure one is spiked, and thus qualifies as a weapon).

[MeeposFire]

Huh, interesting.

Well, I would have to recommed asking your DM about this. It's one of those few cases where two sources of information in the same book directly oppose eachother. If your DM is on board with it allowing power attack, then by all means, go double shield (Just make sure one is spiked, and thus qualifies as a weapon).

Well the reason they came up with the rule of text trumps table is so you don't have to ask the DM officially. Same thing with specific versus general. Those are to be used to reduce DM intervention. DM's should be kept in the loop in general though.

[Blisstake]

I don't know. It really seems like a matter you'd want to check with your DM. It wouldn't do anyone much good if he'll only have the feat work for two-weapon penalties after you built your character on the assumption that wouldn't be the case.

[Xtomjames]

From the PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/glossary#TOC-Bonus-Shield-):

The D20PFSRD page is wrong, the official core rulebook trumps the webpage, until such time as an official errata says otherwise.

Edit: I should explain why, the D20PFSRD is not an officially run page by Paizo and it still has some early run stuff in it, like not being able to sunder armor, which was changed in the official release.

[Darrin]

2: while you can dual wield shields, you cannot garner a higher ac due to the shield bonus' won't stack (theres an exception to this, i'll get to it later) but the penalty's will stack. Boo.


You didn't mention the exception... I assume you meant the Defening property mentioned below? (That's technically not an exception... Defending converts the *weapon enhancement*, not the *shield enhancement*, into an untyped AC bonus.)

There is another exception, though... make one of the shields out of Riverine (+4000 GP, Stormrack p. 128), and it provides a Deflection bonus (which does stack with another shield bonus) equal to one half (round down) of the total AC bonus of the shield (shield bonus + enhancement bonus).



3: get funky shields for the win! In oriental adventures there's a bit of armor called a Dastana. its effectively a buckler that stacks with all shield bonuses. get it, enchant it up, get more ac!


You forgot to mention the Chahar-Aina, similar to a Dastana, that adds an additional +1 bonus that stacks with your existing armor/shield bonuses. I have no idea if the Dastana/Chahar-Aina exists in PF, though.



4: defending weapons are your friend! if you plan on beating people with your board, take a defending weapon so you can add its modifier to your ac. your likely not going to be attacking with it anyways.


Shields can be enchanted as a bludgeoning weapon by itself, but you have to pay for the weapon enhancement separately. Even with the Bashing property, you have to pay 2000 GP for the +1 weapon enhancement first, then +6000 GP for Defending. You can also enchant the armor spikes as a separate weapon. There's considerable debate (unresolved) over whether you can stack multiple defending weapons with each other. (There is no debate over whether Defending can only be applied to swords. No, not even when that one guy always brings it up. Yes, it really is that obvious what the designers intended.)

[MeeposFire]

You didn't mention the exception... I assume you meant the Defening property mentioned below? (That's technically not an exception... Defending converts the *weapon enhancement*, not the *shield enhancement*, into an untyped AC bonus.)

There is another exception, though... make one of the shields out of Riverine (+4000 GP, Stormrack p. 128), and it provides a Deflection bonus (which does stack with another shield bonus) equal to one half (round down) of the total AC bonus of the shield (shield bonus + enhancement bonus).



You forgot to mention the Chahar-Aina, similar to a Dastana, that adds an additional +1 bonus that stacks with your existing armor/shield bonuses. I have no idea if the Dastana/Chahar-Aina exists in PF, though.



Shields can be enchanted as a bludgeoning weapon by itself, but you have to pay for the weapon enhancement separately. Even with the Bashing property, you have to pay 2000 GP for the +1 weapon enhancement first, then +6000 GP for Defending. You can also enchant the armor spikes as a separate weapon. There's considerable debate (unresolved) over whether you can stack multiple defending weapons with each other. (There is no debate over whether Defending can only be applied to swords. No, not even when that one guy always brings it up. Yes, it really is that obvious what the designers intended.)

Careful with the dastana and chahar-aina suggestions since they only work with certain armors. You should combine them with a chain shirt as that is the best armor to combine for them. Also include an armored kilt it is in the PF SRD and it adds another +1 to AC though it changes your armor to medium if you were using a chain shirt.

[tyckspoon]

Not sure where it is located in PF but here is an instance where they reference it on the PF OGC

So it must be said somewhere since they reference it.

It's actually part of the Primary Source rule they printed as a preface to most/all of the errata files in 3.X; that's where both the 'full rules text of an ability wins over quick reference table' and 'if it disagrees with the PHB/MM/DMG, the PHB/MM/DMG is correct unless the source specifically says it is now the primary source' rules of precedence come from. I don't know if Pathfinder ever actually re-printed that stuff in a Pathfinder source, or if it's just one of the assumed inheritances from 3.5; it doesn't appear to be on any of the actual errata documents for Pathfinder.