PDA

View Full Version : shield enchantments



lytokk
2014-03-03, 09:39 AM
is it possible for a shield to have both armor enchantments and weapon enchantments on it? The SRD says that armor enchantments on shields do not carry over into weapon enchantments, but the shield can be enchanted on its own as a weapon? Playing around with an idea for Captain American themed character.

Vhaidara
2014-03-03, 09:40 AM
You are correct. It's a bit clearer with spikes, but it should work with the actual shield as well.

hemming
2014-03-03, 09:52 AM
Oh man - I was researching this recently and found a great link to a Captain America build using a Warblade/Bloodstorm blade, but now I cannot find it

Also, check out Person Man's guide to shields, as it is pretty cool: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123630

Edit: so that Cpt America build is actually the last specific build in the shield guide - that's where I saw it!

lytokk
2014-03-03, 11:29 AM
Thanks for the links, but now I'm wondering about the Bashing property on the shield. Since it now acts like it has a +1 weapon enhancement when used to attack, I still need to actually get the +1 enhancement on it to have it act like a weapon? And I would guess that these enhancements would not stack, ie bashings +1 enhance and a normal +1 weapon enhance needed to get other enhancements making a +2?

does what I said even make sense?

hemming
2014-03-03, 11:39 AM
Yeah - a +1 magical shield enhancement (+1 AC) with a +1 weapon enhancement (+1 attack/dam) has the cost of a +2 magical item

The +1 from either masterwork or shield spikes doesn't count toward magical enhancement level

lytokk
2014-03-03, 11:44 AM
The way I was reading things was that the shield enchantments would be completely separate from the weapon enchantments. +1 weapon is 2000gp, and +1 shield is 1000, so there's no real easy way to enchant them both at the same time. So they would have to enchant up completely separately. For example

+1 Bashing / +1 Flaming Heavy Steel shield

would be 3AC, bash for 1d8 + str + 1d6 Fire + 1 magic for a cost of 12,000 + shield cost

hemming
2014-03-03, 11:51 AM
Ok, I see the problem - I was going off the SRD statement:

"A shield could be built that also acted as a magic weapon, but the cost of the enhancement bonus on attack rolls would need to be added into the cost of the shield and its enhancement bonus to AC. "

So I would think it would cost as a +2 shield enhancement as you are adding in the enhancement bonus to attack rolls to the cost of the enhancement bonus to AC..

Captnq
2014-03-03, 12:01 PM
Think of a shield as a double weapon, except that it's half shield, half weapon. You enchant them separately.

But yeah, you can really get a sick shield going. I made one that you basically wield with two hands and bash someone to death with. It was made for a barbarian since it had all the rage WSAs and ASAs in it.

lytokk
2014-03-03, 02:19 PM
Think of a shield as a double weapon, except that it's half shield, half weapon. You enchant them separately.

But yeah, you can really get a sick shield going. I made one that you basically wield with two hands and bash someone to death with. It was made for a barbarian since it had all the rage WSAs and ASAs in it.

I suppose based on this its going to be pretty important to make sure that its made out of a special material to start with since its going to get pretty pricey to replace or cheaper to upgrade. Especially if it ends up being the main weapon of the build.
Clerics are proficient with shield bashes right? They count as martial weapons when bashing, but clerics are automatically proficient with shields so thats all part of the same thing right?

lightningcat
2014-03-03, 04:45 PM
Think of a shield as a double weapon, except that it's half shield, half weapon. You enchant them separately.


That is the best description I've seen for enchanting a shield as a weapon.

The only problem is that you lose the Shield bonus when using it for attacks. Unless there is a feat for that?

Vhaidara
2014-03-03, 05:46 PM
Improved Shield Bash, funnily enough.