Dual Shield Wield?

[Tibbaerrohwen]

I know you can carry a shield in your off-hand. With two-weapon fighting, you can carry a weapon in your off hand. However:

1) Can you carry a shield in both your off hand and your primary hand?

2) If so, do the AC bonus stack?

Thanks.

[Fenryr]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm


Each armor grants an armor bonus to AC, while shields grant a shield bonus to AC. The armor bonus from a suit of armor doesn’t stack with other effects or items that grant an armor bonus. Similarly, the shield bonus from a shield doesn’t stack with other effects that grant a shield bonus.

Yet you can use two shields for different effects or magic properties.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm

Yet you can use two shields for different effects or magic properties.

Thank you. That's what I thought.

Could you then treat each shield as a weapon, take TWF, and shield bash with each of them, as well as take Two Weapon Defense and get that additional bonus to AC?

[SowZ]

Thank you. That's what I thought.

Could you then treat each shield as a weapon, take TWF, and shield bash with each of them, as well as take Two Weapon Defense and get that additional bonus to AC?

The magic properties are all that you will get the benefits of having two shields from. There is no mechanical benefit from wielding two mundane shields. Two tower shields will not give you +8 AC and two bucklers will only give you +1 AC.

[Fenryr]

Two Weapon Defense is Shield Bonus. No.

I recommend Person Man's Guide to Shields (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630). You should mix armor/weapon properties, actually. What's your goal, by the way?

[candycorn]

You can use 2 shields, bash with one, and retain the AC bonus from the other.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

Two Weapon Defense is Shield Bonus. No.

I recommend Person Man's Guide to Shields (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630). You should mix armor/weapon properties, actually. What's your goal, by the way?

I'm working on a wand wielding Artificer. I'll be using wandstrike for melee combat, and blasting from my wands for ranged combat. I was just curious if I could boost my AC like that, and chamber the wands.

Is there anything Person Man hasn't made a guide to? Genius.

[Darrin]

1) Can you carry a shield in both your off hand and your primary hand?


Yes.



2) If so, do the AC bonus stack?


No. But if one of the shields is made of riverine (special material from Stormwrack), half of the (shield bonus + enhancement bonus) = deflection bonus, which does stack with your other shield bonus.

[Amphetryon]

Work with your DM on this one, because of a silly little bit of pedantic RAW in the PHb: a Shield Bash is always referenced as an Off-hand Attack. This would make it less than ideal to dual wield them, as they'd both be considered Off-Hand weapons.

[panaikhan]

There is a 'weapon' in the Pathfinder world book that is basically a spiked shield (or for those with long memories, turtle/tortoise blade).
It states an attack with it is considered a shield bash, and it provides an armour bonus.

I put together a barbarian dual-wield around this weapon. our GM declared the weapons 'piecemeal armour' so let them stack.

[Feytalist]

Improved Shield Bash allows a shield bash while retaining your shield bonus to AC. You can spare yourself a feat by using two shields, I suppose.

[TraadosDarksund]

There is a wonderful item that counts as a weapon and a shield. It's an Axe shield I believe. Made by dwarves. Check it out.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

There is a wonderful item that counts as a weapon and a shield. It's an Axe shield I believe. Made by dwarves. Check it out.

Where would I find this? RoS?

[Knaight]

Work with your DM on this one, because of a silly little bit of pedantic RAW in the PHb: a Shield Bash is always referenced as an Off-hand Attack. This would make it less than ideal to dual wield them, as they'd both be considered Off-Hand weapons.

A silly little bit of pedantic RAW? It seems more like an attempt to prevent the whole issue of using a shield as a primary weapon, which is a good thing to do if one is going for simulation of something that even vaguely approximates realism in its aesthetic.

[tyckspoon]

A silly little bit of pedantic RAW? It seems more like an attempt to prevent the whole issue of using a shield as a primary weapon, which is a good thing to do if one is going for simulation of something that even vaguely approximates realism in its aesthetic.

Because (spiked chain) D&D's other weapons (double weapons) are so clearly (weapon weights) designed with realism (Sling reloading) in mind. :smalltongue:

[Amphetryon]

Because (spiked chain) D&D's other weapons (double weapons) are so clearly (weapon weights) designed with realism (Sling reloading) in mind. :smalltongue:

Not to mention hiding behind your Tower Shield granting total cover to everything you own, including. . . wait for it. . . your Tower Shield! Whee!

[Feytalist]

Where would I find this? RoS?

CW, but I might be mistaken.


Not to mention hiding behind your Tower Shield granting total cover to everything you own, including. . . wait for it. . . your Tower Shield! Whee!

I do like the idea of a rogue lurking behind a tower shield, but when someone comes around to the back, the shield falls over with no rogue to be seen. Kinda like all those cheesy ninja movies.

[Knaight]

Because (spiked chain) D&D's other weapons (double weapons) are so clearly (weapon weights) designed with realism (Sling reloading) in mind. :smalltongue:
These look exactly like you would expect someone who didn't actually understand medieval combat to include, thinking they fit a pseudo-realistic aesthetic. All of them have their place in the genre, usually due to the aforementioned clueless people. Two shields though? That tends to show up as a joke if at all.

Not to mention hiding behind your Tower Shield granting total cover to everything you own, including. . . wait for it. . . your Tower Shield! Whee!
Eh, this is just sloppy design. Its not as if that is anything special in d20.

[Quietus]

A silly little bit of pedantic RAW? It seems more like an attempt to prevent the whole issue of using a shield as a primary weapon, which is a good thing to do if one is going for simulation of something that even vaguely approximates realism in its aesthetic.

Aside from Tyckspoon's very good points, look up historical combat. In particular, the.. roman? Greek? Both? One of them had a style of fighting that incorporated a large shield, and the intended purpose of that shield was to block attacks and to whack people in the head with it 'cause that makes them fall down fast. I'm sure other cultures have found much the same thing and used similar techniques, but I'm not well enough versed in history to give a full lecture. The shield was, however, a very important part of at least one culture's offensive combat, just as important in killing the other guy before they killed him as their sword was.

[Gullintanni]

Work with your DM on this one, because of a silly little bit of pedantic RAW in the PHb: a Shield Bash is always referenced as an Off-hand Attack. This would make it less than ideal to dual wield them, as they'd both be considered Off-Hand weapons.

The FAQ calls this out as being simply an assumption made on the part of the designers, and that their intent was not to prohibit use of a shield as a mainhand weapon, but rather describe what they thought would be the most common offensive use of a shield.

FAQ =/= RAW, but if you want to make a case to your DM to permit shields as primary weapons, then at least you've got something official in the WotC literature to support your case. As a DM, I simply handwave this little bit of text away.


These look exactly like you would expect someone who didn't actually understand medieval combat to include, thinking they fit a pseudo-realistic aesthetic. All of them have their place in the genre, usually due to the aforementioned clueless people. Two shields though? That tends to show up as a joke if at all.


I've really never understood this argument. Historically, shields at least have a precedent for being used as weapons. In a world where Spiked Chains work, then it's at least as plausible for a shield to be used as a primary means for offense. Heck, you can make full iterative attacks with your armor spikes at 5ft. in 3.5 D&D. None of it is practical, but Shield combat is hardly the lowest common denominator here in terms of impractical weapons.

If someone wants to dual-wield shields, let them. It may not be realistic, but IMHO, as made-up impractical combat styles go, this one is pretty cool. If you don't agree, then take up your argument with this guy :smallamused::

http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Armored_Armadillo

[Knaight]

Aside from Tyckspoon's very good points, look up historical combat. In particular, the.. roman? Greek? Both? One of them had a style of fighting that incorporated a large shield, and the intended purpose of that shield was to block attacks and to whack people in the head with it 'cause that makes them fall down fast. I'm sure other cultures have found much the same thing and used similar techniques, but I'm not well enough versed in history to give a full lecture. The shield was, however, a very important part of at least one culture's offensive combat, just as important in killing the other guy before they killed him as their sword was.

Yeah, and both of them also used weaponry. The Greeks pioneered the phalanx, which is characterized by both the shields, primarily due to their defensive properties, and by the ridiculous number of spears. The Romans did the same thing with the manipole, which used short swords instead (and pilum). As for the offensive uses of shields, striking with the shield was done, but the shields primary offensive purpose was what it let you do with whatever you had in your other hand. Closing in on longer weapons gets much easier, getting your opponents weapon out of the way to allow a strike much easier, so on and so forth.

The point is, a single shield was almost never used on its own in real combat. The exceptions were either things going horribly wrong, or things along the lines of judicial duels, in which everyone involved could be handed the same terrible arms.

As for the spiked chain, there were various long flexible weapons. The three and seven section staff, the rope dart, so on and so forth. The spiked chain itself is all sorts of stupid, but its clear where the concept came from. As for double weapons, take a look at what common beliefs on staff and spear use look like, that it is held in the middle and both ends are used interchangeably seems to be the most common belief.

Realism aside, there is genre emulation. For the most part, outside of D&D, realistic weapons are taken, tweaked until they aren't realistic anymore, and used horribly incorrectly in most depictions. The spear used in the center becomes the double spear, the seven section staff becomes a spiked chain, so on and so forth. The gigantic shield used as a primary weapon barely even shows up, a pair of shields and nothing else is even more uncommon. Not bothering to emulate this, or encouraging this not showing up is completely reasonable. Sure, its more practical than some D&D weapons, such as that terrible gyrspike, but it doesn't show up in the genre in a serious manner to any real extent.

[Aiji Furupsu]

Is it possible in 3.0 to have a dwarf duel weilding 2 tower shield mw? a demo char build cd wont let it for some reason but i find no reason for it. his name is ollum hammersong : str:17, dex:16, con: 17, int: 14, wis:12, cha: 13 feats: ambidextery, imp bull rush, power attack, run, two weapon fighting. Ac:19 weapons: 2 weapon: sheild spikes mw (one for each hand) off hand:spike guantlet mw, main:guantlent spike mw, unarmed for each arm. class features: simple and martial proficiency, light,medium and heavy proficiency, shield proficiency. Armor: full platemw, 2 shield towers mw. can speed 15ft, run x4. carry load is medium. lvl 5 dwarf. the idea is a guard class char that will throw himself in the way to block enemy attacks. When not shielding allies he bull rushes and swings about the tower shield with spikes. and a pretty good unarmed fighter. My dm believes because the demo cd char builder unchecks one tower shield in the equipment section as equiped, that it can not be done. I believe it's his demo cd program not allowing what it should for a unknown reason. So since he didnt check the phb like he religiously does, and i don't own the phb, can it be done using only the phb? :confused:

[lunar2]

you can't attack with a tower shield. there is absolutely no point in dual wielding tower shields.

[The Dark Fiddler]

you can't attack with a tower shield. there is absolutely no point in dual wielding tower shields.

That said, I can't see why you wouldn't be ABLE TO hold two of them. Nothing says you can't.

Sadly, there's not much support for shields, be it sword and board or just board (or even board and board). Some feats in CW give you some nice things (like dazing foes you hit), but that's about it. I homebrewed up a prestige class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248227) to try and help, but it's really more about the tanking with some shield boosts thrown in. Also, homebrew.

[Aiji Furupsu]

You can't shield bash with spikes on the tower shields? Why is that? Shouldn't you be able to if you can wield them? What's the logic behind it?

[The Dark Fiddler]

You can't shield bash with spikes on the tower shields? Why is that? Shouldn't you be able to if you can wield them? What's the logic behind it?

Probably something along the lines of "the tower shield is too cumbersome to bash with," which may or may not be true (I'm not an expert on actual weapons and armor, and it probably depends on the build of the shield). Possibly because then there's no reason to use a heavy shield, really.

It wouldn't be an unreasonable houserule to allow someone to base with a tower shield, I think.

[Aiji Furupsu]

well the dwarf can lift them and wield them without being encombured . The main reason is to be the defensive fighter who will tank for his allies. For melee bash with it's spikes mounted on the tower shield to damage foe. I get what you mean. I just wondered if there was any rule or anything a rules lawyer like my dm, could actually give to not let me get this guy in the game. His interesting quirk is the he always feels a need to protect someone or something at all times. Regardless if they actually need it or not. His nicknam is Ollum The Guard.:smallcool:

[Answerer]

A tower shield is closer to a mobile wall than it is to a normal shield.

[Greenish]

I just wondered if there was any rule or anything a rules lawyer like my dm, could actually give to not let me get this guy in the game.Well, there is the actual rule… :smallamused:

[Aiji Furupsu]

Exactly!:smallbiggrin: he could even chuck them and have them land to the sides of the ally to give the ally addition cover and make it harder for the enemy to get at or hit the ally while Ollum runs asap to the ally's side.

[Aiji Furupsu]

Well, there is the actual rule… :smallamused:

What is it? cuz we're using only the phb 3.0

[Pickford]

I know you can carry a shield in your off-hand. With two-weapon fighting, you can carry a weapon in your off hand. However:

1) Can you carry a shield in both your off hand and your primary hand?

2) If so, do the AC bonus stack?

Thanks.

1) No. The Shield is strapped to your offhand (you only have one of those)

2) See 1.

[Aiji Furupsu]

1) No. The Shield is strapped to your offhand (you only have one of those)

2) See 1.

i have both equipped in his generator demo, in weight area. The ac didn't stack nor does it let me equip it as a weapon like my spike guantlets.:smallconfused:

[Pickford]

i have both equipped in his generator demo, in weight area. The ac didn't stack nor does it let me equip it as a weapon like my spike guantlets.:smallconfused:

You only have one off-hand, a shield is attached to your offhand.

I'm not clear on what someone's generic program has to do with that.

[Aiji Furupsu]

You only have one off-hand, a shield is attached to your offhand.

I'm not clear on what someone's generic program has to do with that.

well its not generic it's the official char gen demo that came with the 3.0 phb. It does have some problems though. The generater doesn't even bring up the tower shields to try to drag them into the weapons section. So I was wondering if it was just the demo messing up, or a actual reason which I'm half understanding. Why can't you have one off set and one main, provided we can carry them around without issue? (and Ollum could do that.) Thats the only question I got left thanks for the imput.:smallconfused:

[Pickford]

well its not generic it's the official char gen demo that came with the 3.0 phb. It does have some problems though. The generater doesn't even bring up the tower shields to try to drag them into the weapons section. So I was wondering if it was just the demo messing up, or a actual reason which I'm half understanding. Why can't you have one off set and one main, provided we can carry them around without issue? (and Ollum could do that.) Thats the only question I got left thanks for the imput.:smallconfused:

Because you don't get a 2nd offhand. (typically your left hand). I suppose if you can figure out a way to wield two shields on one arm it would be possible...but otherwise, no.

[Darius Kane]

You only have one off-hand, a shield is attached to your offhand.
Um... he's using two shields. >.>

Oh, I get it. You're saying that just because rules say you wield a shield in off-hand it means you can't have a shield in your main-hand. Sorry, dude, you're wrong.

[Aiji Furupsu]

Because you don't get a 2nd offhand. (typically your left hand). I suppose if you can figure out a way to wield two shields on one arm it would be possible...but otherwise, no.

so two handed weapon and two tower shields can't work cuz i'm not allowed to wield one in my main hand and one in the offset hand?:smallfrown:

[Darius Kane]

so two handed weapon and two tower shields can't work cuz i'm not allowed to wield one in my main hand and one in the offset hand?:smallfrown:
They can (although I don't know what you mean by "two handed weapon"). He's saying that you can only use a shield in your off-hand. He's wrong.

[Aiji Furupsu]

They can (although I don't know what you mean by "two handed weapon"). He's saying that you can only use a shield in your off-hand. He's wrong.

srry two weapon fighting and he's ambidexterious to limit penalties

[JaronK]

The only way to make dual shields really useful is to use shield attack feats (namely Shield Charge and Shield Slam) along with pounce (perhaps from Lion Totem) to dual wield and smash people.

Otherwise it's not worth it.

JaronK

[The Dark Fiddler]

srry two weapon fighting and he's ambidexterious to limit penalties

Dual-wielding tower shields will not work* because you cannot attack with a tower shield. There are no stats for it as a weapon, and the rule explicitly say you can't anyway (in 3.5 at least):


You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

You could, however, dual-wield heavy or light shields. They'd function just as any other one-handed (heavy) or light (light) weapon would when dual-wielding. Except, by RAW, a shield bash is always an off-hand attack, meaning both attacks would use the off-hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) penalties (which isn't a problem if you have TWF).

Your shield bonus to AC still won't stack, though, and there's not really anything you can do about that except find a way to change the bonus type (somebody mentioned a material that partially makes it deflection) or use one for enchantments and the other for straight bonuses to AC, or something like that.

*Won't work for the purposes of attacking, at least. You can still hold two of them, but there's not really any benefit to it at all.

(Please note all of my advice is for 3.5, which should be similar enough to 3.0 to not cause too much trouble.)

[Talionis]

Exactly!:smallbiggrin: he could even chuck them and have them land to the sides of the ally to give the ally addition cover and make it harder for the enemy to get at or hit the ally while Ollum runs asap to the ally's side.

How would the mechanics of this work? I like the visual of throwing a Tower Shield in front of someone to create a break in line of sight.

Throw Anything Feat
Possibly Far Shot Feat to increase range

[Pickford]

They can (although I don't know what you mean by "two handed weapon"). He's saying that you can only use a shield in your off-hand. He's wrong.

Well, according to the rules I'm completely right, so you have a fascinating definition of the word wrong.

I suppose you could try to wield it as an improvised weapon in your mainhand, but you wouldn't get the AC bonus because it requires your offhand to be wielded.

Note: Ambidexterity went away in 3.5 so there's always an off-hand and a main-hand. Shields only strap onto your off-hand arm.

[Pandoras Folly]

I swear I thought there was a prc that was based around two Shields.

Only drow character I ever ran dual wielded extreme spike Shields. 2lvls fighter rest psion. Shadowwalk in the underdark.

[Darius Kane]

Well, according to the rules I'm completely right, so you have a fascinating definition of the word wrong.

I suppose you could try to wield it as an improvised weapon in your mainhand, but you wouldn't get the AC bonus because it requires your offhand to be wielded.
Considering that shields are listed as weapons, there's no improvisation needed and yes, you are wrong.

[Pickford]

Considering that shields are listed as weapons, there's no improvisation needed and yes, you are wrong.

You're using it for a purpose other than intended (it's not strapped to your arm in the example, hence improvised.

I'm not wrong, the rules are right.

[JaronK]

You do realize the FAQ straight out said you can use shield bashes as a primary attack if you want to, right?

JaronK

[Darius Kane]

You're using it as a weapon, which it is. No improvisation. Used totally as intended (as shield spikes, Bashing shield magic property and Improved Shield Bash would indicate).
And you're still wrong.

[Pickford]

You do realize the FAQ straight out said you can use shield bashes as a primary attack if you want to, right?

JaronK

I seem to remember several others arguing the FAQ isn't RAW

:smalltongue:

[The Dark Fiddler]

Well, according to the rules I'm completely right, so you have a fascinating definition of the word wrong.

Not really, you misunderstand what an off-hand attack is.


Note: Ambidexterity went away in 3.5 so there's always an off-hand and a main-hand. Shields only strap onto your off-hand arm.

Which doesn't matter, because he's play 3.0. And as I already mentioned, off-handedness doesn't work like that.

[Pandoras Folly]

The Fuh'Ack may not be the Rauhw of the holybooks, but it is just as important. It is the collection of wise Rabi I mean DMs rullings and pontifications on the Raheye of thee Rauhw.

[lsfreak]

The big problem with "shield bashes are offhand" is that it means you CANNOT EVER make a single shield attack. "Offhand" and "mainhand" exist only while actively taking TWF penalties for TWF benefits; this basically means feats like Shield Charge (if attacking with a shield on a charge, free trip attempt) are impossible to use without a source of pounce or the feat Two-Weapon Pounce.

The text in the PHB that says they are offhand is not rules, it is poorly-thought-through example text.

[Aiji Furupsu]

lol i'm confused entirely now. Btw the image you wanted me to give you is this one: image throwing both shields to aid ally like a javelin causing the tower shield to slam and dig into the dirt firmly in front or to the side of ally (wherever needed) followed by the next one. admittengly it's would be awsome to do despite how difficult it would be to achieve.

[danzibr]

I often wish to dual wield riot shields when playing CoD2.

Anyway, if I were DM I would totally let somebody dual wield shields and get both shield bonuses to AC (as in let them stack rather than overlap). Just because it's so cool.

[Pickford]

The big problem with "shield bashes are offhand" is that it means you CANNOT EVER make a single shield attack. "Offhand" and "mainhand" exist only while actively taking TWF penalties for TWF benefits; this basically means feats like Shield Charge (if attacking with a shield on a charge, free trip attempt) are impossible to use without a source of pounce or the feat Two-Weapon Pounce.

The text in the PHB that says they are offhand is not rules, it is poorly-thought-through example text.

Offhand attacks are at 1/2 str modifier, that's part of why it matters and that's independent of twf. If you hit with a shield you're always doing 1/2 str bonus damage.

[Answerer]

Offhand attacks are at 1/2 str modifier, that's part of why it matters and that's independent of twf. If you hit with a shield you're always doing 1/2 str bonus damage.
And you have a citation for that outside the TWF rules?

[Muktidata]

My recurring question is that if you're TWF'ing with a shield in two hands and armor spikes as your off-hand attack, do you add 1.5 your strength to your shield attacks?

[Jigokuro]

Shield, Tower: ...You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.
Shield Spikes: ...You can’t put spikes on a tower shield.
This is why you can't dual wield tower shields in any effective sense. You wouldn't be able to use either of your hands for anything, including not only any form of attack by shield or gauntlet but also throwing things such as the shields themselves; they are strapped on to your arms and after you managed to get them on I'm not sure you'd even be able take either off since you can't use either hand for anything.
Also, tower shields can't have spikes, period. It is obviously because they can't bash, (period.) but it is even a separate, extra, specific rule, so you are doubly blocked.
Sorry, but your build idea absolutely and completely by extremely clear rule doesn't work at all.:smallfrown:

P.S. Don't mind Pickford, who is standing by an obvious tiny flaw of RAW (Rules As Written) to try to stop any form of dual shield use, or even single shield as a primary weapon. He is in fact correct, technically, but in a way no one will ever endorse for use in a real game. Similar to how, technically, Ruby Knight Vindicator's ability to trade in turn undead uses for extra swift actions uses a standard action because it is never explicitly stated to be a free action, even though that makes the ability useless and is clearly not intended. Sure, it is true, but no one cares.
P.P.S. Don't mind Darius either, he is arguing back the obvious RAI (Rules as Intended) to Pickford, but doing it in just about the rudest way possible (including not even granting that RAW is flawed) and getting nowhere.

[Darius Kane]

You couldn't possibly be more wrong, even if you were payed for it.

[Morph Bark]

You only have one off-hand, a shield is attached to your offhand.

Your offhand is whichever hand you decide it to be, as there is no handedness in DnD rules. I see no reason you couldn't decide both of your hands to be offhands. You can have only one main hand though.

[Pickford]

And you have a citation for that outside the TWF rules?

Yes.

From the Glossary

off hand: A character's weaker or less dextrous hand (usually the left)... only one-half of a character's Strength bonus may be added to damage dealt with a weapon held in the off hand.

and the armor chapter:
Both for heavy shield and light shields

Shield Bash Attacks:You can bash an opponent with a (light/heavy) shield, using it as an off-hand weapon.

Ergo, shield bashing is always an offhand weapon and always takes 1/2 str bonus even if you 'only' attack with the shield, and there is no 'offhandedness' choice involved.

[Darius Kane]

Can =/= must.

[Answerer]

From the Glossary
Uh, no. Glossaries, by definition, are only abbreviated quick-references. They cannot be a primary rules source. That definition is true, but a glossary, of course, lacks context: namely the fact that those rules are specifically only for the case of Two-Weapon Fighting.


Can =/= must.
Yup, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly. Light Shields are listed as Light Weapons, and nothing says they must be used differently from any other Light Weapons. Ditto Heavy Shields, but as One-handed Weapons.p

[Pickford]

Uh, no. Glossaries, by definition, are only abbreviated quick-references. They cannot be a primary rules source. That definition is true, but a glossary, of course, lacks context: namely the fact that those rules are specifically only for the case of Two-Weapon Fighting.

Glossaries are in the primary sources which are the PHB, MM and DMG. Tables are secondary sources. Always.

In case you've forgotten the freely distributed errata for the PHB 3.5 outlines primary vs secondary:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct. One example of a
primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over
a table entry. An individual spell description takes
precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources
involves book and topic precedence. The Player's
Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing
the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class
descriptions. If you find something on one of those
topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the
Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's
Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is
the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the
primary source for topics such as magic item
descriptions, special material construction rules, and so
on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for
monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural,
extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

So please stop quoting that table, it's not a primary source and it never will be.


Yup, I've pointed that out to him repeatedly. Light Shields are listed as Light Weapons, and nothing says they must be used differently from any other Light Weapons. Ditto Heavy Shields, but as One-handed Weapons.p

The 'can' clause is required because common sense dictates that shields are not weapons, in the same way that gauntlets are not. Hence it is necessary to describe what they 'can' be used as. And they are only allowed as off-hand weapons, not 'as weapons'. Hence the entire description is restrictive.

[The Dark Fiddler]

The 'can' clause is required because common sense dictates that shields are not weapons, in the same way that gauntlets are not. Hence it is necessary to describe what they 'can' be used as. And they are only allowed as off-hand weapons, not 'as weapons'. Hence the entire description is restrictive.

Okay, all shield bashes are off-hand attacks, so they only get 1/2 strength bonus to damage.

That said, OP should talk to his DM and ask him to edit that silly rule.

[Answerer]

snip
You remain wrong, for all of the reasons already delineated.

[Gullintanni]

So please stop quoting that table, it's not a primary source and it never will be.

The 'can' clause is required because common sense dictates that shields are not weapons, in the same way that gauntlets are not. Hence it is necessary to describe what they 'can' be used as. And they are only allowed as off-hand weapons, not 'as weapons'. Hence the entire description is restrictive.

Sources not withstanding, as you're technically correct, the following still applies:


The FAQ calls this out as being simply an assumption made on the part of the designers, and that their intent was not to prohibit use of a shield as a mainhand weapon, but rather describe what they thought would be the most common offensive use of a shield.

FAQ =/= RAW, but if you want to make a case to your DM to permit shields as primary weapons, then at least you've got something official in the WotC literature to support your case. As a DM, I simply handwave this little bit of text away.

Historically, shields at least have a precedent for being used as weapons. In a world where Spiked Chains work, then it's at least as plausible for a shield to be used as a primary means for offense. Heck, you can make full iterative attacks with your armor spikes at 5ft. in 3.5 D&D. None of it is practical, but Shield combat is hardly the lowest common denominator here in terms of impractical weapons.

If someone wants to dual-wield shields, let them. It may not be realistic, but IMHO, as made-up impractical combat styles go, this one is pretty cool. If you don't agree, then take up your argument with this guy :smallamused::

http://megaman.wikia.com/wiki/Armored_Armadillo

...Also...thread necromancy...2011...ouch ><

[Pickford]

You remain wrong, for all of the reasons already delineated.

Your answers were rebutted in full. You remain wrong, get new material or give up.


Sources not withstanding, as you're technically correct, the following still applies:

The best kind of correct.

[Answerer]

Every point in your rebuttal has already been addressed in the past and has not ceased to be inaccurate. I will continue to tell you so for as long as you feel the need to claim otherwise.

[Pickford]

Every point in your rebuttal has already been addressed in the past and has not ceased to be inaccurate. I will continue to tell you so for as long as you feel the need to claim otherwise.

Yes... except for the parts about primary v secondary; the english language use of the word 'can'; and that shields are worn on your offhand (of which there is only one).

So you've addressed everything except...everything.

[Answerer]

Yes... except for the parts about primary v secondary; the english language use of the word 'can'; and that shields are worn on your offhand (of which there is only one).
Each of those has, in fact, been addressed. You are wrong about all three. I am not engaging you any further, I am only continuing to update this notice so that you cannot claim "victory" by default or forfeiture, and that no one makes the mistake of thinking you are correct because your claims go unopposed.

[Darius Kane]

The 'can' clause is required because common sense dictates that shields are not weapons, in the same way that gauntlets are not.
Both are listed as weapons. You're still wrong about everything.

[Pickford]

Both are listed as weapons. You're still wrong about everything.

Actually they are listed as 'armor' and the damage you can deal with them is listed in tables that list 'all' things that deal damage. Being on that list doesn't make it a weapon at all.

Edit: Answerer, just no.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Being on [the list of weapons] doesn't make it a weapon at all.

I think this quote kind of defeats itself.


...tables that list 'all' things that deal damage.

Except, you know, improvised weapons. Everything in that table is a weapon, plain and simple. There is nothing that stops you from wielding a shield in each hand or using two-weapon fighting with those two shields, and I'm terribly sorry you can't see that.

[Darius Kane]

Actually they are listed as 'armor' and the damage you can deal with them is listed in tables that list 'all' things that deal damage. Being on that list doesn't make it a weapon at all.
Except it does.


Except, you know, improvised weapons.
Nah, they're not improvised weapons. They are listed as martial weapons.

[Answerer]

TDF was saying that the Weapons chart does not, as Pickford claimed, list the damage of everything (since it excludes improvised weapons), it lists only the damage of actual weapons.

[Vaz]

Pickford, sure you aren't a troll? There has been at least 3 threads i can remember recently, where you have sworn black was white, and you've been wrong on every single one.

Yet i honestly can't remember a post where you just purely 'contributed' to a discussion.

[TuggyNE]

Yet i honestly can't remember a post where you just purely 'contributed' to a discussion.

He actually has, the other day. I might go dig up a quote. :smallwink:

Still. The rampant black-white advocacy does get a wee bit tiring. It's just… it's OK for RAW to be a bit squirrelly, there are ways to fix that, but it's better to clarify something that may be technically correct (and probably isn't) than to assume something is perfectly understandable to everyone just because there's a tortured interpretation that works for you.

[Greenish]

This is why you can't dual wield tower shields in any effective sense. You wouldn't be able to use either of your hands for anything, including not only any form of attack by shield or gauntlet but also throwing things such as the shields themselves; they are strapped on to your arms and after you managed to get them on I'm not sure you'd even be able take either off since you can't use either hand for anything.Well, you don't need hands for stuff. Say, breath weapons, bite attacks (and mouthpick weapons), unarmed strikes, tail slams (there's a feat to use a weapon with your tail), braid blades, boot blades, spiked armour…

[Pickford]

{{scrubbed}}

[Darius Kane]

Cool story bro, but you're still wrong. Shields are martial weapons and can be used as such, just like any other weapon, including as the primary hand.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I am arguing that the rules state (explicitly) that Shields are always attached to your off-hand and can only be used to make off-hand attacks. (Which has consequences for things like str bonuses applied)

The bolded part is what makes you wrong, though. Off-handedness is not defined outside of two-weapon fighting.


Secondly, the table also lists non-weapons in the form of the gauntlet and unarmed strike.

Gauntlets and unarmed strikes are weapons, and I am honestly flabbergasted that you would argue otherwise.

[Answerer]

The distinction between our styles of presentation is that I have presented actual textual evidence that what I am saying is true
You mean you have ignored the actual text of what you have quoted in favor of what you'd like it to mean. "Can" is a permissive word, and does not even begin to imply any kind of restriction.

[Pickford]

{{scrubbed}}

[Talionis]

Shield is generally a terrible weapon, unless you are using it with the Devoted Spirit Stance that makes the coin flip damage go infinite.

RAW, I think you can use two shields or a shield as a two handed weapon. But even if I were wrong, I'd say RAI you can use two shields, or a single shield as a two handed weapon.

You can only get the Defensive benefit of the shield from the Shield that is worn on your off-hand. But when the shield is being used as a weapon all bets are off.

At worst I see no reason why you couldn't use a shield as an improvised weapon in your main hand.

But the argument just seems silly because like it or not Shields are virtually worthless in 3.5, so anything that makes using a shield slightly better should be allowed otherwise all you will ever see is floating animated shields, if anyone goes through the expense to buy one.

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}


Shield is generally a terrible weapon, unless you are using it with the Devoted Spirit Stance that makes the coin flip damage go infinite.
There are other neat things. Shield Charge, Shield Slam, Agile Shield Fighter, Improved Shield Bash + Dungeoncrasher, etc.


But even if I were wrong, I'd say RAI you can use two shields, or a single shield as a two handed weapon.
The FAQ, for once, makes a reasonably good source on this: the answerer specifically states that he's pretty sure it was meant only as a description of how he expected it would be used, not as a restriction on the only way it could be used.

[Talionis]

There are other neat things. Shield Charge, Shield Slam, Agile Shield Fighter, Improved Shield Bash + Dungeoncrasher, etc.

None of which are a bargain. Most require worthless feats as prerequisites. And most of the feats can be duplicated in other ways to better results.

I love shields. But 3.5 doesn't seem to provide much love.

If you are making a character focused on Shields more power to you. I'm just saying read everything you can as favorable. Because you are self-nerfing a bit.

[The Dark Fiddler]

{{scrubbed}}


Gauntlets are armor that can be utilized as a weapon...

Ah, I'm glad you agree with me that gauntlets are weapons! What, pray tell, is the difference between a weapon and something that can be used as a weapon.

You can only get the Defensive benefit of the shield from the Shield that is worn on your off-hand.

No. This is wrong. Please, everybody stop saying this. There is NO limit on what hand you can use a shield with. The ONLY limitation is that a shield-bash counts as an off-hand attack.

[Pickford]

Fidd: To answer your question, the distinction between a weapon and a non-weapon is what the item was designed for, so it is almost tautological.

A clear example, a mug was designed as a drinking implement, however in a pinch it can be utilized as a weapon. (Fascinating sidenote: This hits on the distinction between the words Use and Utilize as well, you would use an item for what it's designed for, whereas you would utilize it for what it's not.)

So Gauntlets in the case above are designed (and used) to protect your hands from harm, but the game system lets you utilize them as weapons along the lines of brass knuckles.

[Darius Kane]

Shields are still martial weapons and there's still no rule that restricts them to off-hand. I dunno how many times I'll have to repeat that until you'll get it, but I will, because it's a fact and you have nothing that says otherwise.

[Pickford]

Shields are still martial weapons and there's still no rule that restricts them to off-hand. I dunno how many times I'll have to repeat that until you'll get it, but I will, because it's a fact and you have nothing that says otherwise.

They are martial weapons for purposes of the -4 proficiency penalty, and the rule that restricts them is in the armor section of the PHB which is also where it describes using them as offhand weapons.

"You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon." (PHB 125)

That's restrictive in that bash attacks are made as off-hand weapons...not mainhand weapons.

[Darius Kane]

We've been over this. Try to keep up.

[TuggyNE]

A clear example, a mug was designed as a drinking implement, however in a pinch it can be utilized as a weapon. (Fascinating sidenote: This hits on the distinction between the words Use and Utilize as well, you would use an item for what it's designed for, whereas you would utilize it for what it's not.)

So Gauntlets in the case above are designed (and used) to protect your hands from harm, but the game system lets you utilize them as weapons along the lines of brass knuckles.

The problem, of course, is that mugs aren't listed in any weapon-related tables, and would therefore count as improvised weapons (with no proficiency possible*), while gauntlets specifically are designed as weapons (and as armor, though they don't give any specific bonus or ability of that sort), and would have the usual rules for proficiency.

After all, brass knuckles are designed primarily as weapons, no?


*Unless you're a Drunken Master.

[Darius Kane]

*Unless you're a Drunken Master.
In PF you have feats for that.

[robertmdwill]

In a noncore book there is a prestige class that uses two swords, I'll grab it when I get home

[Gwendol]

I'd say the shield (when used offensively) is a martial weapon, since it says so:


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.
I mean, you can even enhance it as if it was a weapon (and thus not increasing its AC bonus).

On the question of an off-hand weapon I'll side with Pickford. There is always a primary and an off-hand in the game, though you are free to choose which (every round). For some strange reason, they didn't quite do away with handedness when going from 3.0 -> 3.5. Hand in this sense doesn't have to be an actual hand, it can be anything to which a weapon is attached.
To those that say no, please provide the source for your interpretation.

To the OP, while the rules text clearly says the shield is used as an off-hand weapon (with all associated penalties) this is a silly rule and any sane DM will easily be convinced otherwise.

[Stome]

I honestly don't know where people are getting that can=must. There are a great deal of weapons that have things listed that they can/may do but in no way does that mean MUST.

Not just weapons but in general if you started taking anything that says can/may as must the game stops functioning.

More so it has already been said be a PF dev that you certainly can attack with a shield as a main attack and main/off hand status ONLY exist when DWing. So this "only get the ac in your offhand" thing has no bases what so ever.

[Stome]

I'd say the shield (when used offensively) is a martial weapon, since it says so:


I mean, you can even enhance it as if it was a weapon (and thus not increasing its AC bonus).

On the question of an off-hand weapon I'll side with Pickford. There is always a primary and an off-hand in the game, though you are free to choose which (every round). For some strange reason, they didn't quite do away with handedness when going from 3.0 -> 3.5. Hand in this sense doesn't have to be an actual hand, it can be anything to which a weapon is attached.
To those that say no, please provide the source for your interpretation.

To the OP, while the rules text clearly says the shield is used as an off-hand weapon (with all associated penalties) this is a silly rule and any sane DM will easily be convinced otherwise.

Correction. The rules clearly say the shield CAN be used as an off-hand weapon. Nowhere is it a must nor is it limited. So no DM hand waving needed.

[Gwendol]

No, the text says the shield CAN be used for bashing.

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

[Ashtagon]

Shields are "martial weapons" (at least, light and heavy shields are).

Some classes have proficiency with shields as a class feature, some don't.

Presumably, this means that a character whose class have Martial Weapon Proficiency but not Shield proficiency can use shields offensively but not defensively. Anyone else thing this is as silly as it sounds?

[Stome]

Now you are just trying to be contrary. It does not change that can does not mean must and nothing restricts it anymore then any other weapon.

[Gwendol]

Ashtagon: yes, you got that right! Also, how can one not be proficient with the shield in the first place? Just hold it between yourself and the enemy...


Stome: except that is not what the quoted text says. I don't think it makes any sense other than planting the seeds for lengthy rules arguments, but if we're discussing RAW, then there it is.

[Answerer]

On the question of an off-hand weapon I'll side with Pickford. There is always a primary and an off-hand in the game, though you are free to choose which (every round). For some strange reason, they didn't quite do away with handedness when going from 3.0 -> 3.5. Hand in this sense doesn't have to be an actual hand, it can be anything to which a weapon is attached.
To those that say no, please provide the source for your interpretation.
You're free to think what you like, but you are wrong. The term offhand appears in exactly three places: the rules for the Two-weapon Fighting combat option; the Glossary, which repeats the definition from the Two-weapon Fighting combat option; and the shield bash, which mentions it only in passing and without definition, and without any such requirement that it be used that way. No other rules reference it, much less widen the definition to have any meaning whatsoever outside the Two-weapon Fighting combat option.

For example, a character with two weapons and BAB +6/+1 can choose to attack with the weapon in his right hand with his first attack at +6, and attack with the weapon in his left hand on his iterative at +1. He is not using the Two-weapon Fighting rules, he does not incur the attack penalties for doing so, and both weapons can be one-handed and receive full Strength-to-damage. Neither weapon is "offhand" because that is a term that is not even defined in this situation. Only if he chooses to use the Two-weapon Fighting combat option, receiving extra attacks, is he required to designate one weapon "offhand."

We know this because if you weren't using the Two-weapon Fighting rules and didn't have a shield equipped, you could read every single relevant rule determining the attack routine without ever once so much as seeing the word "offhand."


rules text clearly says the shield is used as an off-hand weapon (with all associated penalties)
Do not insult us.

There are four pages of almost-unanimous agreement that the rules say no such thing, clearly or otherwise. You insult all our intelligences when you say that "clearly" we are all wrong. If it were "clear" then we wouldn't be having this argument.

[Pickford]

The problem, of course, is that mugs aren't listed in any weapon-related tables, and would therefore count as improvised weapons (with no proficiency possible*), while gauntlets specifically are designed as weapons (and as armor, though they don't give any specific bonus or ability of that sort), and would have the usual rules for proficiency.

After all, brass knuckles are designed primarily as weapons, no?

*Unless you're a Drunken Master.

Yes to the brass knuckles design. What I meant by that was the gauntlets allow you to deal 'lethal' damage with an unarmed strike (i.e. extra damage without taking a -4 penalty) which normally deals non-lethal damage. It has to be on that sheet because it actually alters the standard mechanics of the game for unarmed attacks (though it is still not an armed unarmed attack (PHB 139)).

Actually, though they aren't listed, I would likely rule brass knuckles count as being armed along the lines of a spiked gauntlet (they are a visible threat, whereas someone wearing gauntlets are not obviously armed, hence they still provoke an attack of opportunity even though the damage dealt is lethal).

In the same way, Shields need to be listed. For one thing, that table is the only one I see that lists damage, the armor table would be awfully cluttered if it had to include all of those headings, so it's just not practical to insist that non-weapons used as weapons shouldn't be included.

Stome:

I honestly don't know where people are getting that can=must. There are a great deal of weapons that have things listed that they can/may do but in no way does that mean MUST.

Not just weapons but in general if you started taking anything that says can/may as must the game stops functioning.

More so it has already been said be a PF dev that you certainly can attack with a shield as a main attack and main/off hand status ONLY exist when DWing. So this "only get the ac in your offhand" thing has no bases what so ever.

No it does not mean must, however can is a limiting phrase, it doesn't mean you can/can't do anything else, it's silent on that point. The 1st level spell Ventriloquism provides a great example of how the word can only lets you do the very specific thing that follows:


You can make your voice (or any sound that you can normally make vocally) seem to issue from someplace else....You can speak in any language you know.

This doesn't force you to make your voice issue from someplace else, but you can't speak in a language you don't know as a result.

Since Shield Bash only grants the ability to make off-hand melee attacks with a shield, it doesn't grant you the ability to make ranged attacks (Actually there's a feat for that) or mainhand melee attacks and (since they're strapped to your forearm) you can't make a two-handed attack with them.

Anyway, the point is that can doesn't grant license to do anything else you can think of, it just grants the rather specific ability that follows.

Another (real life) example parents may have encountered: If you tell your child 'You can have a carrot as a snack' that doesn't mean they can then have a box of oreos as a meal just because you didn't tell them not to do that.


Shields are "martial weapons" (at least, light and heavy shields are).

For purposes of penalties from non-proficiency of course. (remember, characters who aren't proficient in all martial weapons would not, by default, be proficient in a shield bash and take a -4 attack roll penalty)


Also, how can one not be proficient with the shield in the first place? Just hold it between yourself and the enemy...

In the same way a person can understand the theory behind using a sword (you swing it at your enemy right?) but still not use it as well as possible. It takes skill to know how to use a shield effectively and to deflect different attacks. If you're not proficient defensively (shield proficiency) you take penalties to reflect the lack of training by the character (you'd still get the AC bonus). Similarly, it's not normal to attack someone with something designed to protect you, hence all the other penalties associated with doing so untrained.

Answerer:

For example, a character with two weapons and BAB +6/+1 can choose to attack with the weapon in his right hand with his first attack at +6, and attack with the weapon in his left hand on his iterative at +1. He is not using the Two-weapon Fighting rules, he does not incur the attack penalties for doing so, and both weapons can be one-handed and receive full Strength-to-damage. Neither weapon is "offhand" because that is a term that is not even defined in this situation. Only if he chooses to use the Two-weapon Fighting combat option, receiving extra attacks, is he required to designate one weapon "offhand."

Iterative attacks are multiple attacks made with the 'same' weapon. PHB 143: "If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons, or a double weapon."

If you get bonus attacks from an offhand 'and' iterative attacks you make the iterative attacks with your mainhand and the bonus offhand attacks with...your offhand. No where does it allow you to mix and match which weapon uses your iterative attacks without taking twf penalties.

[Answerer]

can is a limiting phrase
This has never in the history of the English language been true. You are wrong.

[Pickford]

This has never in the history of the English language been true. You are wrong.

I can only assert I am right by virtue of the definition of the word. None of the below uses enables unlimited discretion in determining the scope of ability, they are all limiting.

1. to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to: She can solve the problem easily, I'm sure.

2. to know how to: He can play chess, although he's not particularly good at it.

3. to have the power or means to: A dictator can impose his will on the people.

4. to have the right or qualifications to: He can change whatever he wishes in the script.

5. may; have permission to: Can I speak to you for a moment?

[Answerer]

None of those is limiting!

You are making the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent). The statement that you can do one thing says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not you can do something else.

The statement in question, reordered as a formal logical argument, is this:

If the shield is an offhand weapon, then you can attack with it.

You are claiming that this implies that the inverse is not true:

If the shield is not an offhand weapon, then you cannot attack with it.

This is logically fallacious. Your argument holds no water at all. In a vacuum, that statement tells you absolutely nothing about whether or not you can make the attack when the shield is not wielded as an offhand weapon.

[JusticeZero]

From a practicality point of view? Using two shields larger than a buckler at the same time is silly, because they do not fit in the relevant facing simultaneously. I could see someone holding two big shields at once, but the only benefit would be that they can use a shield to defend from both of the people flanking them at the same time. Honestly this is worse than catgirl vampires.

[Answerer]

From a practicality point of view? Using two shields larger than a buckler at the same time is silly, because they do not fit in the relevant facing simultaneously. I could see someone holding two big shields at once, but the only benefit would be that they can use a shield to defend from both of the people flanking them at the same time. Honestly this is worse than catgirl vampires.
You do not gain the Shield bonus to AC from two shields. We're largely talking about using shields as weapons, or perhaps using one shield as a weapon and the other as an actual shield.

[Darrin]

I found another way to get a benefit from a redundant shield bonus:

Inlindl School, style feat from Drow of the Underdark. At the start of your turn, sacrifice your shield bonus to AC, gain 1/2 that bonus as an attack bonus on light/finessable weapons.

[Pickford]

None of those is limiting!

You are making the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent). The statement that you can do one thing says absolutely nothing whatsoever about whether or not you can do something else.

The statement in question, reordered as a formal logical argument, is this:

If the shield is an offhand weapon, then you can attack with it.

You are claiming that this implies that the inverse is not true:

If the shield is not an offhand weapon, then you cannot attack with it.

This is logically fallacious. Your argument holds no water at all. In a vacuum, that statement tells you absolutely nothing about whether or not you can make the attack when the shield is not wielded as an offhand weapon.

Can is restrictive in the sense that it doesn't allow things that aren't explicitly mentioned.

So again, saying you 'can' use a thing that is not a weapon 'as a weapon' for a very specific action (which actual weapons can't be used for; you can't shield bash with something that isn't a shield...a sword for example) doesn't mean:

A) That it's now a weapon (because it's used as a weapon doesn't single allowed activity transformative for the item as a whole).
B) That you can use it for other things a weapon would be used for (i.e. mainhand attacks for the full str bonus)
C) Doesn't grant you the ability to wear a shield on your mainhand.

I'm not claiming that 'if the shield is not an offhand weapon' because a shield is 'always' an offhand weapon. There is no option wherein a shield is a mainhand weapon.

[Answerer]

Yes there is, it is listed as a Martial Weapon and nothing, nowhere, says it cannot be used just like any other Martial Weapon. It can be used as an offhand attack, but the permission to do so does not eliminate your permission given elsewhere to use it as a normal Martial Weapon.

And if you argue that presence on the Martial Weapon list does not make it a Martial Weapon, then I am going to ask you to provide citations for where the rules explicitly state you can use any other weapon listed in the table under Martial Weapon as described in the rules for using Martial Weapons, because apparently the table counts for nothing in your mind and therefore we need a separate rule for each and every weapon to explicitly give us permission to use it as a Martial Weapon.

Before you count text trumps table, that only comes into play if there is a contradiction between the two, which is not a thing that we have here.

So yeah, by your reasoning, the only attacks anyone can make are offhand attacks with shields, because everything else doesn't get mentioned explicitly except in the table you like to pretend doesn't exist.

[JusticeZero]

Have you ever seen a large shield? Have you ever buckled one onto your arm? How exactly does one propose to use two of them to both attack and defend in the same 3' wide strip of facing simultaneously? They're as wide as you are! It's like asking whether you can ride two horses bareback simultaneously. Whether or not some odd permutation of the rules allows it, it looks silly.

[Demons_eye]

Have you ever seen a large shield? Have you ever buckled one onto your arm? How exactly does one propose to use two of them to both attack and defend in the same 3' wide strip of facing simultaneously? They're as wide as you are! It's like asking whether you can ride two horses bareback simultaneously. Whether or not some odd permutation of the rules allows it, it looks silly.

Riding two horses at once? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OacuWBh9Z0) Doing something in a fantasy game may sound silly but if you really look at anything in game its all silly. I find it harder to believe that the guy with 8 str can wield a greataxe in a battle, lets say a wizard, and not get tired. They best way to deal with it is if it sounds silly just make it cool. Get a 40 on your ride check to ride two horses? More like stand on them while you chase down the baddies with the reins in your teeth, trading blows with the mooks.


Do you use the facing rules now that you mention it?

[Jigokuro]

Have you ever seen a large shield? Have you ever buckled one onto your arm? How exactly does one propose to use two of them to both attack and defend in the same 3' wide strip of facing simultaneously? They're as wide as you are! It's like asking whether you can ride two horses bareback simultaneously. Whether or not some odd permutation of the rules allows it, it looks silly.

You keep saying it doesn't make sense because of facing, but 3.5 doesn't have facing, so what are you trying to say? D&D certainly don't have to make real-world/logical sense if that is what you're going for...


And to pickford, you can use 2 different weapons on different iterative attacks due to BAB without penalty, the twf penalties only apply if you are using the weapons at the same time to gain more attacks. It says so on- oh, look at that- PHB 143, an inch under where it says the 3 different, separated-by-ORs possible ways to get extra attacks.

[Gwendol]

Actually, judging from the text it's the other way around. On page 143 it says:

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons, or a double weapon. (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160)"

Look closely at the text above. It doesn't say "...because you use the two-weapon fighting special attack" it says because you fight with two weapons.

Let's go to page 160 then.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon.

Notice that it says "can", meaning that the benefit of fighting with two weapons is optional, however:

You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.
I'd like to point out a few things here: Regular attack (or attacks) are done with the primary hand, and the extra attack(s) is done with the off hand weapon (as always "hand" just means the body part wielding the weapon).

I know that a lot of people like to think that the "fight this way" part only relates to taking the extra attack, but that is not supported by the available rules text.

Please show me an official example where primary and off-hand attacks are used without incuring the TWF penalties. I am quite certain there are none (since we've had this debate a few times).

[Gwendol]

You keep saying it doesn't make sense because of facing, but 3.5 doesn't have facing, so what are you trying to say? D&D certainly don't have to make real-world/logical sense if that is what you're going for...


It could be that the bloke who wrote the rules for shield bashing has seen or put on a shield, and decided it best be described as wielding an off-hand weapon.

[Pickford]

Yes there is, it is listed as a Martial Weapon and nothing, nowhere, says it cannot be used just like any other Martial Weapon. It can be used as an offhand attack, but the permission to do so does not eliminate your permission given elsewhere to use it as a normal Martial Weapon.

And if you argue that presence on the Martial Weapon list does not make it a Martial Weapon, then I am going to ask you to provide citations for where the rules explicitly state you can use any other weapon listed in the table under Martial Weapon as described in the rules for using Martial Weapons, because apparently the table counts for nothing in your mind and therefore we need a separate rule for each and every weapon to explicitly give us permission to use it as a Martial Weapon.

Before you count text trumps table, that only comes into play if there is a contradiction between the two, which is not a thing that we have here.

But the Shield is only listed as a martial weapon because of the shield bash option. Without that option it is not a martial weapon.

If it was only possible to use the shield in the way I'm suggesting (i.e. You can use a shield to shield bash, but it's an offhand attack made as a one-handed martial bludgeoning weapon) how would you list it on that table? Or are you saying you simply wouldn't list it? The way your argument reads to me, you're saying because of a style choice by the designers (including the damage dealing options for shields on the weapons table) that now fundamentally alters the way the items work.

And so yes, if you're saying the inclusion of an item on the weapon table makes it a weapon, then I am saying it does not. And the only place that says you can attack at all with a shield is in the section on armor. The text in the section on using a shield as a weapon refers you to that, which means that, and only that text, applies. 1) There simply is no text describing the use of a shield as a weapon in any way OTHER than to make a shield bash in the armor section, and 2) a shield bash is always described as allowing you, under that limited circumstance, to make an off-hand attack with your shield and only when doing so the heavy shield is treated as a one-handed martial bludgeoning weapon for purposes of various penalties/damage reduction.


So yeah, by your reasoning, the only attacks anyone can make are offhand attacks with shields, because everything else doesn't get mentioned explicitly except in the table you like to pretend doesn't exist.

I'm not pretending the table doesn't exist, but I am saying I think we're reading the table differently. I see the table as a handy collection of stats for pepole to look up for determining what things they want to use as weapons (it would be redundant to put all the improvised weapons up there because they function as the weapon they are most similar to). Being on that list doesn't grant any item there a special significance. The shield 'has' to be on that list because there is nothing similar to it, but that doesn't make it an always martial weapon and we can see that from the armor section where it only acts as a martial weapon in a singular circumstance (during a shield bash) which has limited framing of use.

I see no justification anywhere for saying the shield is on that list for any other reason such as the one you cite. If you can find such justification in the text, not the table, then by all means please tell me where, but without that...



And to pickford, you can use 2 different weapons on different iterative attacks due to BAB without penalty, the twf penalties only apply if you are using the weapons at the same time to gain more attacks. It says so on- oh, look at that- PHB 143, an inch under where it says the 3 different, separated-by-ORs possible ways to get extra attacks

Yes I'd say it's not twf if you are holding two weapons but only use the one, and it's also not going into twf if you are, for example, using multiple weapons with your mainhand. For example: If you have quickdraw (allowing you to draw weapons as a free action) and 4 iterative attacks you could draw a crossbow, fire, drop the crossbow, draw a greatbow fire the greatbow, drop the greatbow, pull a shuriken, throw the shuriken, then draw a greatsword and make an attack, all without incurring any twf penalties using only the iterative attacks.

What you can't do however is make an attack with a greatsword, then draw a dagger with your offhand and make an attack with it without first disposing of the greatsword. That incurs twf penalties.

[Talionis]

Have you ever seen a large shield? Have you ever buckled one onto your arm? How exactly does one propose to use two of them to both attack and defend in the same 3' wide strip of facing simultaneously? They're as wide as you are! It's like asking whether you can ride two horses bareback simultaneously. Whether or not some odd permutation of the rules allows it, it looks silly.

Its fantasy. I could see someone with two mirror image large shields that could lock together to be about the same size as a tower shield. Maybe the one is black and one is white and they look like Yin and Yang.

The rules make it close to impossible to get the AC bonus from both shields at once, and that sorta makes sense.

In actuality for a long time shields didn't buckle to your arm, they were just held in place. There is a huge strength advantage to buckling the shield, but they don't have to be buckled.

[Answerer]

(since we've had this debate a few times).
Yes, we have, and you remain entirely wrong. Your interpretation requires an invalid reading of "this way" in the TWF rules.

[Gwendol]

You are of course entitled to your point of view, I however note that you haven't produced an example of a dual-wielding character not being subjected to the rules for TWF.

[Answerer]

How many examples are there of combat in the books in the first place? There's only the example character stat blocks, which are notoriously unreliable in the first place, and there's no way I'm going through all of them to find out whether or not they ever bothered to stat what would be a rather weak and unrecommended build. Your argument here is also a logical fallacy, namely an argument from ignorance.

[Gwendol]

Nice. Discussing me instead of the actual topic then?

[JusticeZero]

I find it harder to believe that the guy with 8 str can wield a greataxe in a battle, lets say a wizard, and not get tired.
A greataxe is only a couple pounds; it's a bit like putting a meat cleaver blade on a staff. Fast and light weapon with lots of leverage and reach. Completely reasonable to be used by someone with unimpressive strength. Ditto with all the two handers, really. They're light and you can wave them around easily.

Regardless of what the rules say, shields are too big and two of them would mostly just get in each other's way.

Using a shield offhand with a weapon effectively is an important skill; apparently typical spear and board fighting techniques that have been experimented with by the recreation types require more active use of the shield for creating openings to stab through.

But there's a big difference between a fighting style that actively uses one shield to make openings for the weapon in your other hand, versus a fighting style where you are trying to fit two small handheld walls into the same intervening space between combatants trying to somehow stack an abstract numeric bonus.

[Answerer]

Nice. Discussing me instead of the actual topic then?
What? No. "Argument from ignorance" is the fallacious argument that "we don't know that it isn't, therefore it is." Lack of counter-examples does not constitute any kind of proof of your claim.

[Talionis]

A greataxe is only a couple pounds; it's a bit like putting a meat cleaver blade on a staff. Fast and light weapon with lots of leverage and reach. Completely reasonable to be used by someone with unimpressive strength. Ditto with all the two handers, really. They're light and you can wave them around easily.

Regardless of what the rules say, shields are too big and two of them would mostly just get in each other's way.

Using a shield offhand with a weapon effectively is an important skill; apparently typical spear and board fighting techniques that have been experimented with by the recreation types require more active use of the shield for creating openings to stab through.

But there's a big difference between a fighting style that actively uses one shield to make openings for the weapon in your other hand, versus a fighting style where you are trying to fit two small handheld walls into the same intervening space between combatants trying to somehow stack an abstract numeric bonus.

If you wanted to try to come up with a real fighting style that used two shields you probably could. It would be defensive, possibly work best against multiple attackers from multiple directions.

You probably wouldn't want to be using two tower shields maybe not even large shields, but you could probably find some size of shield that worked.

Is this the best form of combat probably not, but when you do something that no one has ever fought against before you do have surprise on your side. Also you'd have to know what you were good at. The style might be important to push enemies into something else. Maybe most people wouldn't notice the sharp edge on your shield that you know how to use with precision.

No move into the realm of fantasy and you can see more far fetched, but plausible uses.

Well if you are trying to bash someone with a shield (possibly cut them with the Spiked Shield or Tortoise Shield) and the other shield remains in a more guarded position they don't have to get in each others way. As previously pointed out there are feats that allow shields to work decently well as weapons. There is even a two weapon fighting feat for shields.

DnD is supposed to allow people to make the characters they want to make. A dual shield wielder is never going to be particularly overpowered. (exception that infinite damage loop that no reasonable DM will allow in game) So let your players have fun and quit trying to find ways to read RAW to stop people from having fun.

[Gwendol]

My claim is based on the rules provided. Yours is based on a common practice on TO forums?
No matter. You are trying to use bullying tactics to discredit me and/or somehow make my contributions to the debate seem irrelevant, rather than argue your own point of view.

[Answerer]

My claim is based on the rules provided. Yours is based on a common practice on TO forums?
No matter. You are trying to use bullying tactics to discredit me and/or somehow make my contributions to the debate seem irrelevant, rather than argue your own point of view.
You are thoroughly confusing me. I'm saying that your argument (that I need to find examples to counter you) is logically fallacious; that has nothing to do with TO, these basic axioms of logic have been around for millenia.

I did not debate you because we've had this debate before. I have personally had this debate, with you, in the past. It's not particularly on-topic and it's not particularly worth rehashing. I was only stating my continued belief that you are wrong.

But fine, if you feel insulted by my reluctance to return to this tired argument, fine.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.(emphases mine)

In other words, having two weapons is a prerequisite for using the Two-weapon Fighting combat option. But it is explicitly called out as being something you can do in that situation, not something you must do (see similar argument with Pickford regarding the meanings of these words). If you choose to take the extra attack, then you get penalties. The "this way" can grammatically refer only to the case where you take the extra attacks, not merely having two weapons, because "this" is a proximal demonstrative adjective.

The definition of an off hand weapon, then, is the one which is getting the extra attack when using the Two-weapon Fighting option. There are no other rules that specify when a weapon is off hand.

[Pickford]

You are thoroughly confusing me. I'm saying that your argument (that I need to find examples to counter you) is logically fallacious; that has nothing to do with TO, these basic axioms of logic have been around for millenia.

I did not debate you because we've had this debate before. I have personally had this debate, with you, in the past. It's not particularly on-topic and it's not particularly worth rehashing. I was only stating my continued belief that you are wrong.

But fine, if you feel insulted by my reluctance to return to this tired argument, fine.
(emphases mine)

In other words, having two weapons is a prerequisite for using the Two-weapon Fighting combat option. But it is explicitly called out as being something you can do in that situation, not something you must do (see similar argument with Pickford regarding the meanings of these words). If you choose to take the extra attack, then you get penalties. The "this way" can grammatically refer only to the case where you take the extra attacks, not merely having two weapons, because "this" is a proximal demonstrative adjective.

The definition of an off hand weapon, then, is the one which is getting the extra attack when using the Two-weapon Fighting option. There are no other rules that specify when a weapon is off hand.

In other words: If you're using a shield bash attack you can 'only' attack once (short of the twf feat tree) as shield bash specifically says the attack is an off-hand attack.

[JusticeZero]

If you wanted to try to come up with a real fighting style that used two shields you probably could...you could probably find some size of shield that worked. ..The style might be important to push enemies into something else. Maybe most people wouldn't notice the sharp edge on your shield that you know how to use with precision.
Sure, and I think that someone fighting with two bladed arm braces might be pretty cool. But at that point you have moved away from "I am fighting with two shields" and into the realm of "I am dual-wielding this exotic weapon that also gives a bonus to AC".

[Jigokuro]

In other words: If you're using a shield bash attack you can 'only' attack once (short of the twf feat tree) as shield bash specifically says the attack is an off-hand attack.

But there is no off/main hand when making only 1 attack in a round. In order for an attack be offhand it has to be the bonus attack given from fighting with two weapons at once. Thus, if you were right, it would be impossible to make a shield bash outside of a full attack where you had another weapon also attacking. There are feats that specifically show that is not the case (easiest example: Shield Charge from Cwar doesn't have pounce as a prereq, but would be useless otherwise by your stance.) Ergo, you must be wrong.

[Gwendol]

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way.

The extra attack is an optional benefit of two-weapon wielding, the penalties are not. I know this sentence can be read the way you propose, and I understand why you want to do it that way, but if you look at the following examples you may be able to see where I'm coming from.

EDIT: I'm repeating myself here a little, but please note that all iterative attacks are made with the primary hand.


Thrown Weapons
The same rules apply when you throw a weapon from each hand.

Notice the condition for when the rules apply.


Double Weapons
You can use a double weapon to make an extra attack with the off-hand end of the weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons.

Again, the rules only mention fighting with two weapons, not the "special two-weapon fighting attack".

Also, look at:


Sword, Two-Bladed
A two-bladed sword is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

Again, notice the condition required for being subjected to normal attack penalties: just using a weapon in each hand. In fact, it is impossible to use a double weapon (as intended) without incurring the attack penalties according to the rules.

Look at the Urgrosh:

The urgrosh’s axe head is a slashing weapon that deals 1d8 points of damage. Its spear head is a piercing weapon that deals 1d6 points of damage. You can use either head as the primary weapon. The other is the off-hand weapon.

How then do you plan to use both the primary and the off-hand end without having to deal with attack penalties for two-weapon fighting?

I can go on, of course, but I don't think it's of much use. Hopefully, you may at least be able to see my reasoning a bit more clearly.

[Muktidata]

Isn't a spiked shield a weapon in its own right that can be wielded as a.......


....... wait for it.........



.................. weapon. :smallwink:

[Jigokuro]

Isn't a spiked shield a weapon in its own right that can be wielded as a.......
....... wait for it.........
.................. weapon. :smallwink:

Also worth noting, as it hasn't been yet afaik: since shields can be enchanted as weapons, they can be enchanted with Adaptive, the ability that lets you treat it like a different weapon for feats n stuff. If the shield weren't a weapon that wouldn't make any sense.

[Gwendol]

Even though shields are only mentioned as being weapons for off-hand use, I believe that to be simply a lack of clarity on their editing. Since they can be enchanted as weapons, they are weapons, and can be used as a primary weapon.

[Darius Kane]

I think I already mentioned that they're listed as weapons. More than once. >.>

[Jigokuro]

The extra attack is an optional benefit of two-weapon wielding, the penalties are not.

Then why, when fighting sword and board but only attacking with the sword is it not at -6? You are holding a viable offhand weapon such that you can attack -6 with a bonus -10 if you choose.
When holding a one handed weapon in one hand and attacking with it by itself, it should not matter at all what is in your other hand, be it a heavy shield, a dagger, or a wondrous item.

[Gwendol]

As long as you don't attack with the shield you never have to deal with the penalties. Same goes for any other weapon, or whatever is used besides the primary weapon. Holding it naturally gives no penalty, using it does.

[Greenish]

As long as you don't attack with the shield you never have to deal with the penalties. Same goes for any other weapon, or whatever is used besides the primary weapon. Holding it naturally gives no penalty, using it does.So if you're holding, say, two longswords, don't have TWF the feat, and attack using Wolf Fang Strike maneuver, your attacks are made at -8 and -12?

[Gwendol]

No, that's a ToB maneuver. It does what it says, regardless of feats. Incidentally, that's TWF done right.

[Greenish]

No, that's a ToB maneuver. It does what it says, regardless of feats. Incidentally, that's TWF done right.What it does is attack with two weapons, and you just got done saying that using both weapon, regardless of whether you TWF or not, will trigger the penalties.

[Gwendol]

ToB maneuvers functions a little like spells in the sense that they do what they say. For example, a crusader executing a charging minotaur maneuver doesn't provoke AoO's, regardless of having the imp Bull Rush feat or not. There is nothing particular about the Wolf Fange strike in comparison with other ToB maneuvers: using them allows the adept to do extraordinary things.

If that Tiger Claw adept then follows up with a regular full attack, and decides to use both weapons, he will have to deal with the penalties for attacking with two weapons.

EDIT: Oh, and I just got done quoting rules that say that using both weapon, regardless of whether you TWF or not, will trigger the penalties. I'd like to emphasize this.

[Greenish]

ToB maneuvers functions a little like spells in the sense that they do what they say. For example, a crusader executing a charging minotaur maneuver doesn't provoke AoO's, regardless of having the imp Bull Rush feat or not. There is nothing particular about the Wolf Fange strike in comparison with other ToB maneuvers: using them allows the adept to do extraordinary things.

If that Tiger Claw adept then follows up with a regular full attack, and decides to use both weapons, he will have to deal with the penalties for attacking with two weapons.

EDIT: Oh, and I just got done quoting rules that say that using both weapon, regardless of whether you TWF or not, will trigger the penalties. I'd like to emphasize this.There's nothing in the maneuver that'd excuse you from those penalties under your interpretation.

[Gwendol]

Why do you think that? One is a standard action menuver, the other is a full attack. Quoting the introdoctury text of Blade Magic chapter in ToB:


This chapter covers all the basic guidelines and rules for
using the maneuver system described in this book. Think
of this material as analogous to that in Chapter 10 of the
Player’s Handbook.

In other words, magic.

Also (bolded for emphasis):


Because strikes allow for a specifi c form of attack,
you cannot benefi t from spells or effects that grant
you extra attacks when making a strike (such as the
haste spell or a speed weapon). You are not taking a
full attack action when you initiate a strike, even
if its initiation action is 1 full-round action. In
addition, you cannot combine special attackssuch as sunder or bull rush with strikes, even
if you have feats that make such special attacks
more potent. However, some strikes enable you
to make special attacks as part of their initiation

As I said: you are not taking a full attack action, and therefore can't apply the TWF penalties. Also, you can't combine the strike with something else, including feats that would make such special attacks more potent (ITWF, for example).
Finally, some special attacks are part of initiating a maneuver, just as I said. They are discrete actions, that like a spell, work as described.

[Pickford]

But there is no off/main hand when making only 1 attack in a round. In order for an attack be offhand it has to be the bonus attack given from fighting with two weapons at once. Thus, if you were right, it would be impossible to make a shield bash outside of a full attack where you had another weapon also attacking. There are feats that specifically show that is not the case (easiest example: Shield Charge from Cwar doesn't have pounce as a prereq, but would be useless otherwise by your stance.) Ergo, you must be wrong.

I don't see any rule that disallows you from using your offhand weapon only. That doesn't make it 'not' your off-hand however.

[Gwendol]

Yes, but on the other hand (haha) since you are allowed to freely designate the primary and off-hand, we don't expect that to come up very often do we? For the shields, even though they are called out as being used as off-hand weapons, I'd say it is most likely an editing error. With the shield feats in CW and other books expanding the use of shield slams and bashes, you now have both the means and the incentives of using the shield as primary weapon for certain attacks.

[Answerer]

In other words: If you're using a shield bash attack you can 'only' attack once (short of the twf feat tree) as shield bash specifically says the attack is an off-hand attack.
That is in no way another way of saying what I said. Don't you dare put words in my mouth.


The extra attack is an optional benefit of two-weapon wielding, the penalties are not. I know this sentence can be read the way you propose, and I understand why you want to do it that way, but if you look at the following examples you may be able to see where I'm coming from.
1. It explicitly says if you have two weapons, then you can get an extra attack, but you take penalties if you fight this way. It is grammatically wrong to interpret "this way" as referring to "fighting with two weapons," as it cannot do so, it must refer to the most proximate "way" in the sentence, which is the "way" in which you get the bonuses. So that's wrong.

2. When do you have an "offhand" weapon? When you use Two-Weapon Fighting. If you don't use Two-Weapon Fighting, and you just make an attack with one weapon, while happening to hold another weapon in your other hand, you don't have a main hand and an offhand, and you don't take penalties: you admitted so yourself when you discussed a sword'n'board user who didn't use shield bashes.

And each attack can be made with any available weapon. I have two weapons, say a Longsword and Battleaxe, and BAB +6/+1, I make a full-attack. I do not use the Two-Weapon Fighting combat option, so I take no penalties, get no extra attack, have no "main hand" or "offhand." First attack is at +6, I make it with the Longsword. Second attack, at +1, I can make it with any available weapon. Find me a rule saying I cannot make it with the Battleaxe.


EDIT: Oh, and I just got done quoting rules that say that using both weapon, regardless of whether you TWF or not, will trigger the penalties. I'd like to emphasize this.
No, you didn't.


For the shields, even though they are called out as being used as off-hand weapons, I'd say it is most likely an editing error.
They were explicitly acknowledged as such by the author in a link that was posted like four pages ago.

[Gwendol]

2. When do you have an "offhand" weapon? When you use Two-Weapon Fighting. If you don't use Two-Weapon Fighting, and you just make an attack with one weapon, while happening to hold another weapon in your other hand, you don't have a main hand and an offhand, and you don't take penalties: you admitted so yourself when you discussed a sword'n'board user who didn't use shield bashes.

And how do you plan on doing that with a dwarven urgrosh then, without going against the rules text I quoted earlier. Remember: one end is the primary end and the other is off-hand. It can't be a special case either since they keep referring back to holding a one-handed weapon in the primary hand and a light weapon in the off hand.

How do you fit throwing weapons with both hands into this idea of yours? You can't make iterative attacks with throwing weapons using both hands without incurring the penalties.

[Answerer]

With respect to the general double weapon rules and the double-bladed sword, there's no problem. You take the penalties as if you were fighting with two weapons. That means if you use the Two-Weapon Fighting option, you take -2/-2, and if you don't, you take -0/-0. It never says one end is main and the other offhand, it says one counts as one-handed and the other counts as light.


And how do you plan on doing that with a dwarven urgrosh then, without going against the rules text I quoted earlier. Remember: one end is the primary end and the other is off-hand. It can't be a special case either since they keep referring back to holding a one-handed weapon in the primary hand and a light weapon in the off hand.

How do you fit throwing weapons with both hands into this idea of yours? You can't make iterative attacks with throwing weapons using both hands without incurring the penalties.
These look like someone who wrote them was under the same misconceptions you are. Editing mistakes, which are unsurprising. RAW, fine, if you're dumb enough to use an urgrosh (and, I'll stipulate, any similarly-worded double-weapons), you get trapped with one being offhand, and throwing weapons from both hands somehow requires that you use the Two-Weapon Fighting option, but you cannot extrapolate either specific, contradictory case back into the general case. RAW, specific trumps general, in those cases you would have to obey them even though they contradict the rest of the rules.

[Gwendol]

Please, they only contradict the rules the way you read them. From my point of view they are no contradictions or "special cases". All double weapons work the same regarding wielding, don't try to say anything else (possible exception being the quarterstaff which can't be wielded with one hand).

[Answerer]

And your reading is grammatically impossible, so it doesn't much matter that it works out nicely with these special cases.

[Gwendol]

Yeah, yeah, whatever :smallsmile:

[Pickford]

That is in no way another way of saying what I said. Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

I'm not. You wrote this:


The "this way" can grammatically refer only to the case where you take the extra attacks, not merely having two weapons, because "this" is a proximal demonstrative adjective.

The definition of an off hand weapon, then, is the one which is getting the extra attack when using the Two-weapon Fighting option. There are no other rules that specify when a weapon is off hand.

If shield bash is an offhand attack (it is) and making an offhand attack requires twf, then you can only shield bash while twf.

[Jigokuro]

If shield bash is an offhand attack (it is) and making an offhand attack requires twf, then you can only shield bash while twf.

But you explicitly can make shield bashes when not 2 weapon full attacking because there are a bunch of feats that show this to be possible.
The logic following your 'if' is correct for the case of that if being true, but your result is patently false, so you must be wrong. You just set up and used a formal proof by contradiction on yourself and succeeded.

[Answerer]

If shield bash is an offhand attack (it is)
It can be. Can be. How many times can we repeat ourselves? The word used is can.

[Talionis]

Sure, and I think that someone fighting with two bladed arm braces might be pretty cool. But at that point you have moved away from "I am fighting with two shields" and into the realm of "I am dual-wielding this exotic weapon that also gives a bonus to AC".

Tortoise Shield is a shield. It does everything a shield can do, only it has a sharp edge or spike that you can use to attack with.

But either way, I could see someone fighting with two large shields. They might be a little cumbersome, but they could be superior to unarmed attacks unless you are specifically trained in some way. A shield can do almost as much damage as a mace.

Just by caring two shields you could block a large number of random arrow attacks and block the good angles of short swords and the like.

The real advantages would be creating a fighting style that accentuated the positives of using two shields and minimized the drawbacks.

Just because it was never done doesn't mean it couldn't be done.

[Gwendol]

My guess is that fighting styles evolved in an extremly evolutionary fashion: survival of the fittest you know.

[Pickford]

It can be. Can be. How many times can we repeat ourselves? The word used is can.

Yes, but what it does 'not' say is that you can use a shield bash as a mainhand attack. Only offhand. That's the distinction I'm getting at.

[Talionis]

My guess is that fighting styles evolved in an extremly evolutionary fashion: survival of the fittest you know.

Yah, but evolution takes a lot of different directions.

Also, innovation often takes a leap in an uncharted direction. I could easily see one guy learn to fight well with two shields. Gain enormous rogue advantage because no one knows how to interact with him and be quite successful. It's not the generic thing you'd teach a battalion, but I could see it being a unique fighting style like fencing is different from other swordplay.

[Answerer]

Yes, but what it does 'not' say is that you can use a shield bash as a mainhand attack. Only offhand. That's the distinction I'm getting at.
I know, but it doesn't matter because you can do that anyway by virtue of light, heavy, light-spiked, and heavy-spiked shields all being Martial Weapons in addition to that rule.

Rule A. says you can use a shield bash as an offhand attack.

Rule B. says shields are martial weapons.

Rule C. says martial weapons can be used for mainhand, offhand, and most-any-other-hand attacks.

There is no contradiction for specific-trumps-general to come into play. Rule A does not prevent the general case of Rule B + Rule C from still being true.

[Pickford]

I know, but it doesn't matter because you can do that anyway by virtue of light, heavy, light-spiked, and heavy-spiked shields all being Martial Weapons in addition to that rule.

Rule A. says you can use a shield bash as an offhand attack.

Rule B. says shields are martial weapons.

Rule C. says martial weapons can be used for mainhand, offhand, and most-any-other-hand attacks.

There is no contradiction for specific-trumps-general to come into play. Rule A does not prevent the general case of Rule B + Rule C from still being true.

They are 'only' martial weapons when you are shield-bashing. It says so in the shield bash section:


Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table 7-5: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.

1) Off-hand weapon.
2) Table 7-5 lists the damage of a shield used in a shield bash.
3) When used in a shield bash, the heavy shield is a martial weapon, not always, which means you can't use them for mainhand attacks because they are 'only' weapons when shield bashing and those carry strict limits.

[Answerer]

Again, when you use it as a shield bash, it's a martial weapon. When you simply just use it as a weapon, it's still a martial weapon. Nothing there says it does not otherwise operate as a martial weapon.

The text still does not contradict the general classification of shields as martial weapons.

[JusticeZero]

Yah, but evolution takes a lot of different directions.. I could easily see one guy learn to fight well with two shields. Gain enormous rogue advantage because no one knows how to interact with him and be quite successful. The problem with your style being based on "people don't know how to counter me" is that as soon as you start to make a name for yourself, everyone trains the counters to you. If that's all you've got, you then become pretty irrelevant.

[Demons_eye]

Going by that logic the problem with that is people have to survive with first hand experiences with the fighter to understand better how to counter it At high level its true that people can have a style that can be counter but most of the time people are fighting monsters not other people.

At lower levels they wouldn't have made a name for themselves yet and those they would fight that could easily beat them wouldn't be looking for a counter, they would just out skill them.

Last two shields as style does nothing any other two weapon fighting does besides giving you a little bit more AC. As a style its cool but not as effect as, maybe a dual tripping style or something like trident and net. Its not like there is something to counter besides making touch attacks, and you can stop those with making your shields give you deflection ac or apply to touch.

[Darius Kane]

Except shields have a few neat shield-only feats with cool powers, so it's not just "just a little bit more AC". And if you have feats to spare you can go TWF or tripping or whatever, no problem.

[JusticeZero]

Except that it wouldn't give any more AC.

To block an attack with a shield, you need to be holding the shield in a certain space in front of you that it is anatomically possible to generate the needed strength and support in. That space is actually smaller than even a small shield. If you try to "hug" one of your shields close to you so that you can hold another shield in front of it, then well - the benefit of the shield wasn't so much in adding inches of plating between you and the attack, but in the area that it covers - and you are restricting the mobility of the shield. The only way I can see someone using two shields is if they are only using one at a time - block and bash with one shield while holding the other one out of the way, then switch and use the other one instead.. and that isn't going to be very efficient for anything. I suppose you could use bucklers, but you'll have less coverage than a single shield.

It's one of these things where it's easy to type the words "I use two shields", but it's just as easy to type "My fighting style lets me get a surprise bonus by cutting off my own head. I don't have any magic healing and i'm not undead, it's just that surprising. Then I can get quickdraw and sneak attack bonuses in the middle of combat." Alternately, it's very easy to claim that you are going to change out a lot of parts of your car engine to increase gas efficiency, then earn money by driving it around with a gas can on the side selling the gas as it overflows out of your tank because you've added 110% efficiency. The reality is not working that way.

If someone hands you two shields and says "Show me how", you'll be at a loss, and if you ask an artist to draw you fighting that way in a realistic manner that shows your masterful defense, they will hate you.

[JaronK]

Actually, I could wield two shields... it's not hard. The forward shield (left side) is the primary blocker, and preferably has a spike on it that can be used to press into enemies. The right side one is used to hit with a haymaker motion with the side of the shield (and is probably a smaller shield).

And this is correct within the rules... the advantage to two shields is found when using Shield Charge and Shield Slam along with Pounce.

JaronK

[Gullintanni]

If someone hands you two shields and says "Show me how", you'll be at a loss, and if you ask an artist to draw you fighting that way in a realistic manner that shows your masterful defense, they will hate you.

This is really true only if you assume a very rigid definition of what shape constitutes a "shield". Fighting with a buckler, each of which had a bladed or spiked edge, wouldn't be particularly difficult to envision. If you insist on using the traditional kite shield as your frame of reference, then fighting with two shields would obviously appear very unrealistic and unwieldy.

If, on the other hand, a shield is essentially just a piece of shaped wood, designed to offer protection to the user, then it's not difficult to envision a shield that could be shaped so as to be effective as both a weapon and as a piece of defensive equipment.

[JaronK]

Imagine using one of these as your primary hand weapon:

http://www.wulflund.com/img/goods/en/medium/large-gun-shield-with-gauntlet-decoration-replica_2.jpg

I could see using a pair of those.

JaronK

[Gullintanni]

I could see using a pair of those.

JaronK

Not what I had in mind, but brilliant nevertheless.

[Demons_eye]

Except shields have a few neat shield-only feats with cool powers, so it's not just "just a little bit more AC". And if you have feats to spare you can go TWF or tripping or whatever, no problem.

But characters rarely have the feats to spare. I'm not knocking down Two Shields, I love the idea, but I can think of much more style feats that use two weapons then shield feats. Jack B. Quick leans heavily on such a feat.

Not saying it isn't worth it or not cool or not interesting just other weapons have more styles that have counters.



Except that it wouldn't give any more AC.

Ok, right now you are talking about DnD. And it would. You attack with one, shield bash, or you can get spikes enchanted with defense, or you can throw it like Captain America. Just beacuse you are using two shields doesn't mean you have to two weapon fight them.

One character I made was a kolbold which took a feat that made his tail an extra hand. I wield three shields, two to attack and one for defense. The point is that you can find ways to make cool things happen, you are only limiting yourself by being bogged down on the reality of things in a fantasy game.





To block an attack with a shield, you need to be holding the shield in a certain space in front of you that it is anatomically possible to generate the needed strength and support in. That space is actually smaller than even a small shield. If you try to "hug" one of your shields close to you so that you can hold another shield in front of it, then well - the benefit of the shield wasn't so much in adding inches of plating between you and the attack, but in the area that it covers - and you are restricting the mobility of the shield. The only way I can see someone using two shields is if they are only using one at a time - block and bash with one shield while holding the other one out of the way, then switch and use the other one instead.. and that isn't going to be very efficient for anything. I suppose you could use bucklers, but you'll have less coverage than a single shield.

This is real life, please stick to one medium to argue so we can argue it. It's not the same as real combat but when we Lapered a few years ago many people used two shields on occasion. This works on the level that all people had the same, or less, level or training fighting and weapon wise. The two shields worked well but you couldn't attack with them by our rules.

I never had problems wielding them. Yes they were lighter than metal shields but I'm not trained to fight. If I was I dont thing wielding a few extra pounds would be that hard, less if you did a mix of wood and metal.




It's one of these things where it's easy to type the words "I use two shields", but it's just as easy to type "My fighting style lets me get a surprise bonus by cutting off my own head. I don't have any magic healing and i'm not undead, it's just that surprising. Then I can get quickdraw and sneak attack bonuses in the middle of combat." Alternately, it's very easy to claim that you are going to change out a lot of parts of your car engine to increase gas efficiency, then earn money by driving it around with a gas can on the side selling the gas as it overflows out of your tank because you've added 110% efficiency. The reality is not working that way.

Now you are having it both ways. You are auguring that it doesn't make sense in real life but when someone brings up a legit argument for in real life you switch to in game.

Every time I have fought someone I have not before, be it larping or a real scrap, I have been cautious. Surprise at something you are not familiar with is common and that can end a fight within a second. Its like if someone can slip you into a triangle arm bar after taking a blow to the stomach. If Dual shields in real life could surprise people in a fight that is a legit argument.




If someone hands you two shields and says "Show me how", you'll be at a loss, and if you ask an artist to draw you fighting that way in a realistic manner that shows your masterful defense, they will hate you.

This is fantasy, its doesn't have to be real and I bet that half the people you would ask would have fun with it and the other half might just not like drawing what you are asking, IE not a limit of their skill or imagination just they dont want to.

[Darius Kane]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/300/b/a/dual_shield_spartan_warrior_by_losthashishin-d31n65o.png
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23988778.jpg
BTW. You think dual shield wielding is hard? Try bows.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/090127.png


But character rarely have the feats to spare.
That's the one thing Fighters can shine at.

[Demons_eye]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/300/b/a/dual_shield_spartan_warrior_by_losthashishin-d31n65o.png
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/23988778.jpg
BTW. You think dual shield wielding is hard? Try bows.
http://www.nuklearpower.com/comics/8-bit-theater/090127.png


That's the one thing Fighters can shine at.

And I totally want to play a warforged fighter that works with two shields and starts or ends fights with a pile driver with a shield. Like the HALO drops but ends with a shield bash thats on fire from the friction.



Then then a cleric that abuses Grillion arms and bows.

[JusticeZero]

While not a stickler for "realism", I do want representationalism. I want enough realism that you could get one of those crews who put together 3d cutscene animations to show it and have it look neat without lots of clipping or fudging.

Two little things with shields in it would work fine, like that picture above, but I don't know that that is so much "dual shield" as "dual-wielding light exotic weapons that give an AC bonus and have some shield properties". I'm okay with that. I just don't think that it's a debate about using two shields so much as it would be "create special rules for this exotic weapon", which since it isn't in RAW, would need to be crafted from scratch anyhow.

[Darius Kane]

While not a stickler for "realism", I do want representationalism. I want enough realism that you could get one of those crews who put together 3d cutscene animations to show it and have it look neat without lots of clipping or fudging.
And I want a hot girlfriend and a million dollars.


Two little things with shields in it would work fine, like that picture above, but I don't know that that is so much "dual shield" as "dual-wielding light exotic weapons that give an AC bonus and have some shield properties". I'm okay with that. I just don't think that it's a debate about using two shields so much as it would be "create special rules for this exotic weapon", which since it isn't in RAW, would need to be crafted from scratch anyhow.
What. :smallconfused:

[JaronK]

For what it's worth, to dual wield shields you generally do have to use a light shield offhand and a heavy shield main hand, so you do indeed have a smaller shield and a big one. I'm pretty sure I could do that in real life (though I'd want the smaller shield main hand).

JaronK

[Pickford]

Again, when you use it as a shield bash, it's a martial weapon. When you simply just use it as a weapon, it's still a martial weapon. Nothing there says it does not otherwise operate as a martial weapon.

The text still does not contradict the general classification of shields as martial weapons.

Nowhere does it say the shield is a martial weapon when it's not shield bashing.

The table on 7-5 is specifically shields used in a shield bash and shield bash says 'when used this way' which means it's not a martial weapon (or indeed, a weapon at all) unless the shield bash option is being used.

[Answerer]

{{scrubbed}}

[Pickford]

Funny, my copy of the Player's Handbook doesn't have a listing for any sort of "Shield Bash" in Table 7-5. It has Light Shield, Heavy Shield, Light Spiked Shield, and Heavy Spiked Shield. The non-spiked versions don't even have footnotes pointing at the Armor section for any kind of details.

But your copy of 3.5 does have on page 125 the following:

Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table 7-5: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash.

And the important part is that tables don't refer to text, text refers to tables.


{{scrubbed}}

Uncalled for Answerer. I don't see anything where wotc said anything of the kind, citation please?

[Darius Kane]

Shields are listed as martial weapons. Your argument is invalid.

[JusticeZero]

I'd respond to a player trying to give me the argument that you are giving (exceedingly legalistic and pointing at quirky definitions) by telling them that they can either sit back down and drop it and quit being silly, or go out the door, because you are wasting everyone's time trying to get something silly and your entire argument is based on the wording resulting from the game designers wanting to use normal human language instead of legalistic jargon, and to have the information needed located in a reasonable and usable way instead of in a bunch of badly referenced footnotes.

[Answerer]

But your copy of 3.5 does have on page 125 the following:

And the important part is that tables don't refer to text, text refers to tables.



Uncalled for Answerer. I don't see anything where wotc said anything of the kind, citation please?
Shrug. Your choice. I was only observing that you have so far convinced no one in seven pages and you might want to consider this since your arguments seem to be ineffective. How that is "uncalled for," I'm not sure.

As for the citation, as referenced earlier in the thread, the official FAQ (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) contains the following:

Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon?

While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.
FAQ is not RAW, but makes at least something of an evidence of RAI.

[Gwendol]

Incidentally, the same can be said of SKR's article on TWF.

[Answerer]

Incidentally, the same can be said of SKR's article on TWF.
One, the FAQ wasn't written by SKR. That automatically makes it better and more authoritative than SKR's article. SKR neither understands nor cares about mechanics, rules, or balance, and furthermore has gone on the record denigrating anyone who does. His opinion on, well, anything should really honestly be completely disregarded.

Two, the FAQ is stuck on the WotC website and marked "official." Certainly, the errata rules are very clear that in a contradiction between the FAQ and the rules published in a book, the published rules win (i.e. the FAQ is not RAW), but in this case we have a statement that permits one form of attack, without making any statement about what other forms are permissible, and then another statement confirming that the unmentioned forms are, too, permissible. That is not a contradiction.

I still wouldn't call it RAW because of the FAQ, but the statement I made when I referenced it was that "Wizards disagrees with your interpretation," of which the FAQ is reasonable evidence, I think. Wizards is not immune to misinterpreting their own rules; numerous FAQ and CustServ answers are testament enough to that. But for whatever it is worth, they interpret their rules as I, and as far as I can tell everyone who isn't Pickford,1 does.

1 And yourself? not really clear on your position regarding requiring shield bashes to be offhand; JusticeZero has objected to dual-shields on grounds of versimilitude, but I can't recall him making a rules-based argument – at any rate my apologies to anyone I've missed or whose position I have misrepresented

[Pickford]

Shields are listed as martial weapons. Your argument is invalid.

Except that they aren't.

The weapons text refers one to the armor text, the armor text indicates shield bash is an option in which the armor is treated as a martial weapon (i.e. they aren't normally) and indicates the weapon table only lists damage for this purpose.

Meaning shields aren't weapons, that seems definitive within the rules.

[Answerer]

Except that they aren't.

The weapons text refers one to the armor text, the armor text indicates shield bash is an option in which the armor is treated as a martial weapon (i.e. they aren't normally) and indicates the weapon table only lists damage for this purpose.

Meaning shields aren't weapons, that seems definitive within the rules.
To no one but you. You really should stop using adjectives that describe how the rules appear to be, seem to be, what they clearly are, and so forth.

Anyway, your problem is the parenthetical, "(i.e. they aren't normally)" – care to cite that?

[Pickford]

To no one but you. You really should stop using adjectives that describe how the rules appear to be, seem to be, what they clearly are, and so forth.

Anyway, your problem is the parenthetical, "(i.e. they aren't normally)" – care to cite that?

This isn't a 'to me' issue, it's written in the armor text that shields are only listed on the weapons table to list the damage from shield bashing. There is zero interpretation of anything going on here.

Your question implies everything is a weapon unless demonstrated otherwise. Care to cite that?

[Answerer]

No, just everything listed in the table marked "Weapons."

And yes, it is just you. Every single poster in this thread has disagreed with your interpretation. Wizards of the Coast themselves has disagreed with your interpretation. So yes, it is very much just you.

[Gwendol]

Don't bring me into this discussion! Shields can be enchanted as weapons; that's good enough for me. Whatever the text says it is clear shields are to be treated as weapons as well as... well, shields.

[Answerer]

OK, fixed. Sorry, that was purely out of an intent not to misrepresent anyone's views; I wasn't clear what yours were.

[Pickford]

No, just everything listed in the table marked "Weapons."

And yes, it is just you. Every single poster in this thread has disagreed with your interpretation. Wizards of the Coast themselves has disagreed with your interpretation. So yes, it is very much just you.

And it is on that list by virtue of its use in a shield bash. The existence of shields on the 7-5 table is dependent on the text in the armor section.

[Answerer]

And it is on that list by virtue of its use in a shield bash. The existence of shields on the 7-5 table is dependent on the text in the armor section.
So you claim, but you have yet to actually back that up or convince anyone that it is the case. I note that the unspiked versions don't even have the footnote directing you to look at the armor section. And I furthermore note that nothing in the armor section (or anywhere else) precludes the use of shields as weapons outside of a shield bash.

[Pickford]

So you claim, but you have yet to actually back that up or convince anyone that it is the case. I note that the unspiked versions don't even have the footnote directing you to look at the armor section. And I furthermore note that nothing in the armor section (or anywhere else) precludes the use of shields as weapons outside of a shield bash.

Perhaps we're not looking at the same version of the PHB then?

I don't have the earlier copies of the PHB, but the PHB 3.5 with the errata (the newest copy wotc released) states in the text for shield, heavy or light and for spiked shield, heavy or light, and also for spiked armor, to refer to the armor section of the chapter.

The base assumption is that armor isn't a weapon. In these special cases however, a character can use armor as a weapon, using special ruless.

[Answerer]

Your base assumption, not necessarily the game's. I would not generally assume that any object is a weapon unless it appears on the Weapons table or is otherwise explicitly indicated as such. Most armors, therefore, are not things I would assume can be used as weapons (other than through improvised weapon rules). But I see no reason, either rules-wise or fluff-wise, why status as an armor should automatically make something not a weapon any more than any other object is not a weapon.

In other words, a chain shirt isn't a weapon because it's an armor, it's not a weapon because nothing says it is. By the same token, a shield is a weapon because the Weapon table says it is, and the fact that it's also an armor makes absolutely no difference. And again, nothing anywhere says "a shield is not a weapon except when used as a bash which has special limitations listed in the armor section."

[Pickford]

Your base assumption, not necessarily the game's. I would not generally assume that any object is a weapon unless it appears on the Weapons table or is otherwise explicitly indicated as such. Most armors, therefore, are not things I would assume can be used as weapons (other than through improvised weapon rules). But I see no reason, either rules-wise or fluff-wise, why status as an armor should automatically make something not a weapon any more than any other object is not a weapon.

In other words, a chain shirt isn't a weapon because it's an armor, it's not a weapon because nothing says it is. By the same token, a shield is a weapon because the Weapon table says it is, and the fact that it's also an armor makes absolutely no difference. And again, nothing anywhere says "a shield is not a weapon except when used as a bash which has special limitations listed in the armor section."

Well, there is the clause in the armor section that the shield is on the weapon list 'because' that's the damage done by a shield used to shield bash.

If you could use a shield as a weapon normally, why have all the shield bash rules at all and go to the trouble of explicitly describing the entry on 7-5 as being shield bash damage?

[Answerer]

Well, there is the clause in the armor section that the shield is on the weapon list 'because' that's the damage done by a shield used to shield bash.
It doesn't actually say that, though. It does say that you can use a shield bash, and it uses the damage of the shield itself as listed in table 7-5, but nothing says that this the only reason the weapon is listed.

Ultimately, this is poor wording and is indicative of WotC's admitted mistakes on the subject.


If you could use a shield as a weapon normally, why have all the shield bash rules at all and go to the trouble of explicitly describing the entry on 7-5 as being shield bash damage?
Redundancy is good for humans, plus it's important to those who are considering shields as armor to also note that they are potentially also useful as weapons. I wish WotC did that more often, instead of requiring you to cross-reference stuff.

[Talionis]

I just get this weird image of a guy who is right handed using a shield as a weapon in his left hand. Think of the commercial where the guy is trying to teach his kid to throw a baseball, but he doesn't know how to throw a baseball, and it only goes a few feet.

So I can't use a shield in my primary hand even as an improvised weapon?

At some point, if you are shield bashing and don't have a weapon. They must have intended to let you use just the shield as a weapon and known you'd either use two hands or use your stronger hand. Since that makes sense, I'd be trying to stack the rules in a way that makes sense.

I think a lot of the rules assume you have a weapon in your primary hand. So they may not be 100% clear, but its pretty clear if you have a shield in your hand you aren't going to use your weak hand. And this is more than defensible under the rules.


Trying so hard to read the rules not to make sense in real life and
Trying so hard to make shield fighting even more nerfed seems silly.


I thought the generic stacking was that players could stack rules in their favor?

[JusticeZero]

They must have intended to let you use just the shield as a weapon and known you'd either use two hands or use your stronger hand.A shield bash is more analogous to a brief football tackle with the shield. handedness is irrelevant because it doesn't use any upper body muscles at all, just hold the shield and do a quick body slam. Just the one slam, not continuing to walk forward - that would be a bull rush. It's a body attack. And it's a body attack with a big thing. Nobody is "nerfing shield fighting" because shield fighting has never been a thing in its own right; it's always been a way to add options to a single handed weapon user.

[Darius Kane]

@ Talionis
There is no "handedness" in 3.5. Characters can use either hand as good as the other. There's no "weaker hand". Characters can decide with hand is primary during an attack, and the other is off-hand. Thus it is totally within the rules to use a shield as your primary attack, even if you have a weapon in your other hand.

@ JusticeZero
Have you seen Dark Souls? That's how you shield bash.

[Pickford]

@ Talionis
There is no "handedness" in 3.5. Characters can use either hand as good as the other. There's no "weaker hand". Characters can decide with hand is primary during an attack, and the other is off-hand. Thus it is totally within the rules to use a shield as your primary attack, even if you have a weapon in your other hand.

Shield bashes however are offhand attacks. So unless you're homebrewing something, you aren't just hitting the enemy with your shield over and over, you can only do it once a round and you're twf when you do it. You can choose what hand you 'favor' but Shield bash attacks are 'never' mainhand attacks.

[JaronK]

Can a character make a shield bash attack using the shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand weapon?

While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course, that means that any attack you make with your other hand becomes a secondary weapon.

That was posted earlier, but here it is again. That's from the FAQ, which absolutely is RAW (it's called the Official Rules FAQ). So yes, you can use shields mainhand.

And @Justice: Shield bashes are not just shoves. They can also be used in a haymaker like attack using the edge of the shield to slam into an opponent, which is far more effective than a simple shove.

JaronK

[Darius Kane]

Shield bashes however are offhand attacks.
The rules and FAQ disagree with you.

[Pickford]

That was posted earlier, but here it is again. That's from the FAQ, which absolutely is RAW (it's called the Official Rules FAQ). So yes, you can use shields mainhand.

And @Justice: Shield bashes are not just shoves. They can also be used in a haymaker like attack using the edge of the shield to slam into an opponent, which is far more effective than a simple shove.

JaronK

Fair enough, however on a separate note that same FAQ indicates that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, which means nobody but monks can use necklace of natural weapons on their unarmed strikes as only the monks unarmed strikes are treated as natural weapons. (I seem to recall some hullabaloo last time that was brought up)...but since the FAQ is raw, no worries right?

Edit: Darius the FAQ contradicts the core rules, core RAW it's an offhand attack. I'm just surprised the core rules have no errata to that effect if it's true, which is apparently doubtful.

[Talionis]

@ Talionis
There is no "handedness" in 3.5. Characters can use either hand as good as the other. There's no "weaker hand". Characters can decide with hand is primary during an attack, and the other is off-hand. Thus it is totally within the rules to use a shield as your primary attack, even if you have a weapon in your other hand.

@ JusticeZero
Have you seen Dark Souls? That's how you shield bash.

Sorry if I'm not being precise.

I still agree whole hardedly with your interpretation of the Rules and FAQ. The problem is when you read about handedness and start trying to think about real life/simulation implementation.

I'm just saying that in a simulation a shield is no different than any other item or weapon. They have already nerfed shields enough, they do almost no damage compared to other items. I think people are misreading and stacking rules in the wrong way in order to make the rules look sillier than they really are.

[JusticeZero]

They have already nerfed shields enough, they do almost no damage compared to other items..
They have never "nerfed shields". Shields have never been a weapon. Nobody has ever picked up a shield intending to slaughter people in a single effortless swing. That's because they're not weapons, save for an edge case where you are using it for a particular UTILITY tactical movement that can potentially leave the target bruised up as a side effect. Saying they "nerfed shield damage because it's so low" is a little bit like me saying that they "nerfed" the damage of a thrown cucumber, since the damage a character can inflict by throwing cucumbers is negligible.

[TuggyNE]

Saying they "nerfed shield damage because it's so low" is a little bit like me saying that they "nerfed" the damage of a thrown cucumber, since the damage a character can inflict by throwing cucumbers is negligible.

Actually, D&D did nerf cucumbers, but not for damage; a good healthy cucumber can take you most of a yard in a growing season, simply by doing nothing but sit on it! And D&D has no rules for doing that, which is a terrible shame. Props if you remember where this is from.

[Darius Kane]

That's because they're not weapons
I assume you're talking RL, because we already established that they are martial weapons in D&D.

[JaronK]

Also, in real life many shields really were weapons. I don't know where everyone gets this idea that many pounds of steel held in the hand is somehow not a useful weapon. Imagine picking up something like a manhole cover and trying to beat someone to death with it... do you think that wouldn't be assault with a deadly weapon?

JaronK

[Pickford]

I assume you're talking RL, because we already established that they are martial weapons in D&D.

No, what was established is that shield bashes can, hypothetically be wielded in the mainhand (making your sword-hand the offhand) not that they are weapons.

[JaronK]

It was established that they were also listed in the table of "weapons". That makes them weapons. See here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm

Note they can also be enchanted as weapons too.

JaronK