2 shield ranger?

[Zhentarim]

Could a ranger take 2 weapon fighting and be carrying a light shield and a heavy shield, using both as weapons and, using improved shield bash, gain the AC of both?

[TheCrowing1432]

First of all, Shield and Armor bonuses do not stack you use whatever bonus is the highest.

Second of all, Shields are not weapons, using a shield as a weapon in the manner you described would be as an improvised weapon.

The only time a shield isnt considered an improvised weapon is when a shield bash special attack is used which I think can only be done once.

[gartius]

As TheCrowing1432 says the ac does not stack. However you can indeed use both as weapons and shield bash with both of them.
Shield Bash: If I make a shield bash, does it always have to be an off-hand attack?
The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.

Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”

[Zhentarim]

In a campaign with undead, if a dagger is my off hand, is a spiked shield or normal shield better?

[grarrrg]

In a campaign with undead, if a dagger is my off hand, is a spiked shield or normal shield better?

Probably the normal shield due to Bludgeoning generally being better vs. undead.

And even though 2 shields won't stack for AC, you may still be better off with 2 shields. Feats and abilities like Weapon Focus care about weapon type, so 2 of the same 'weapon' is better than 2 different ones.

Of course, a variety of weapons is always good too. Maybe a normal Shield for main hand.
For off-hand: a normal Light shield, a couple metal shields made of different metals to bypass special DR, that kind of thing. Maybe a dagger if there's a useful enchantment you can't put on a (spiked) shield for some reason.

[upho]

In a campaign with undead, if a dagger is my off hand, is a spiked shield or normal shield better?What grarrrg said, plus shields have some really superior enchantments like maelstrom, tempest and bashing, also being considerably cheaper than weapon enhancements once you hit 6th level and get Shield Master (which also mean your best weapon combo is to wield two heavy shields without penalties and dirt cheap enhancements working for both attacks and AC). If you think dealing bludgeoning damage is going to be important, I suggest you wield one spiked shield and one normal.

You can also become a decent switch-hitter by wielding one or two throwing shields through an Opalescent White Pyramid in a wayfinder (2k) and blinkback belt of mighty throwing.

[BearonVonMu]

Pathfinder has a feat called Dual Shield Fighting.
That might be helpful for your build. Take a look.

[Zhentarim]

What grarrrg said, plus shields have some really superior enchantments like maelstrom, tempest and bashing, also being considerably cheaper than weapon enhancements once you hit 6th level and get Shield Master (which also mean your best weapon combo is to wield two heavy shields without penalties and dirt cheap enhancements working for both attacks and AC). If you think dealing bludgeoning damage is going to be important, I suggest you wield one spiked shield and one normal.

You can also become a decent switch-hitter by wielding one or two throwing shields through an Opalescent White Pyramid in a wayfinder (2k) and blinkback belt of mighty throwing.
Lots of zombies (slashing) and skeletons (bludgeoning)

[upho]

Pathfinder has a feat called Dual Shield Fighting.
That might be helpful for your build. Take a look.Oh, never heard of it and googling didn't turn up anything. Might you have a link?

Or were you thinking of the 3PP feat Two Shield Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/combat-feats/two-shield-fighting-combat)? If so, I think there are several better feats you should grab first.

[Zhentarim]

Pathfinder has a feat called Dual Shield Fighting.
That might be helpful for your build. Take a look.

I'll look at that!

[Bakkan]

If your table uses 3.5 content, consider Agile Shield Fighter from Player's Handbook II. It sets the penalties on attacks to -2/-2 when using a shield in your offhand. This lets you use a heavy shield in both hands and allows you to drop Dex, as the feat has no Dex requirement (unlike Two-Weapon Fighting).

[Tohsaka Rin]

Lots of zombies (slashing) and skeletons (bludgeoning)

If zombies are your problem, I suggest checking the Pathfinder SRD for the Serrated Shield (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/3rd-party-equipment/3rd-party-armor-shields/3rd-party-shields/super-genius-games/serrated-shield), which allows you to deal slashing damage with a bash, rather than bludgeoning.

[Jay R]

I just wrote the following in another thread:

'I would disallow it, on the basis of a rule found in Conquistador!, a 70s SPI game, forbidding doing something "in contravention of common sense".'

Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game.

[grarrrg]

'I would disallow it, on the basis of a rule found in Conquistador!, a 70s SPI game, forbidding doing something "in contravention of common sense".'

Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game.

Realism? In a fantasy game? BLASPHEMY!

[LTwerewolf]

Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game.

Sounds very much like "you're having fun wrong."

[Extra Anchovies]

Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game.

People do silly things all the time. Give me two garbage can lids and I'll show you how to fight with two shields. I wouldn't be good at it, but such is the nature of nonproficiency penalties and untrained TWF penalties.

Fighting with two shields wouldn't be a good idea for an average warrior, because sword and shield is strictly better - more damage output, same AC, same ability to shield bash. Not hugely better, but at 1st level those small advantages can count for a lot, especially if you're not a Big Damn Hero with spellcaster buddies. But the Big Damn Hero has a much easier time staying alive, so they can afford to do stuff that is (at least initially) a touch less effective than sword and board for the sake of the Rule of Cool.

[Der_DWSage]

If you're going to go two-shield fighting, you need to have a legitimate reason to dual-shield. I actually had fun with a dual-shield Ranger, but it required a lot of shenanigans.

In this case, it was a Pathfinder build, using the Sword-And-Shield combat style of a Ranger. He was Two-handing the heavy shield until he hit 6th level in Ranger, at which point he shifted to dual-wielding due to having access to Shield Mastery (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final), basically letting him pick up the other shield as a cheap weapon.

The other half of the build involved heavy use of Shield Slam (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-slam-combat---final), the Siegebreaker Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/siegebreaker-fighter-archetype), and the GM allowing me to full-attack with bull rushes.

The point I'm getting at is, dual-wielding shields is pretty awful by base, worse than dual-wielding clubs, for example. But if you find a gimmick that works well for them, that's when you want to go for it.

[upho]

I just wrote the following in another thread:

'I would disallow it, on the basis of a rule found in Conquistador!, a 70s SPI game, forbidding doing something "in contravention of common sense".'

Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game.And here it is, the obligatory uneducated "doesn't even know RL fighting"-"dual shields are silly"-argument. :smallsigh:

Fighting with two shields is (https://youtu.be/VbdLr7A6W3s) very much a Real LifeTM martial arts style. (https://youtu.be/y9uILn0iCUs)

EDIT: Now please go back and correct yourself in that other thread where you put up the same lie. /EDIT

[Barstro]

URL="https://youtu.be/VbdLr7A6W3s"]Fighting with two shields is[/URL] very much a Real LifeTM martial arts style. (https://youtu.be/y9uILn0iCUs)

And my party will walk around that silly person to take out the actual threat.

Afterwards, the Bard will tell amusing stories so that this odd individual will kill himself while trying to clap in enjoyment at the fine tales.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Really, in a game where you can sing and dance to power other people up, or use bat poop to make fire explosions, and gnomes, I can't believe there still exist people that say 'no, that's silly, you're not allowed to enjoy the game that way'.

Don't be the 'stop having fun, guys' person. That's not what DnD is for.

[Barstro]

Really, in a game where you can sing and dance to power other people up, or use bat poop to make fire explosions, and gnomes, I can't believe there still exist people that say 'no, that's silly, you're not allowed to enjoy the game that way'.

Don't be the 'stop having fun, guys' person. That's not what DnD is for.

I would never try to stop someone from having fun, unless that person's fun was ruining my enjoyment, but them we would just not play together.

Stating that this in inherently viable in-game because it works in the real world, and then basing that on one person demonstrating it in a slow kata does not persuade me.

Given the many limitations of dual shields, I'd be handing out a whole lot of homebrew to allow a player to do this. But I think the final result would still wind up being less than fun.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Honestly, I try not to say things do or don't work because of 'real life'. It's a fantasy game.

When someone comes on and asks questions, the last thing any member of this forum should be saying is 'your idea is silly, stop it and play the game'. That's the kind of comment that usually gets you dirty looks from everyone else.


Given the many limitations of dual shields, I'd be handing out a whole lot of homebrew to allow a player to do this. But I think the final result would still wind up being less than fun.

What homebrew is needed? Got two-weapon fighting? Got improved shield bash? Good, they're set. Anything more after that is gravy.

There's no more inherent limitations to using two shields than there is using two longswords. Mmm, actually, I think over-sized two-weapon fighting would help, just like it would with using any two non-light weapons. Gotta make the most of those shield bashes.

[Zhentarim]

I would never try to stop someone from having fun, unless that person's fun was ruining my enjoyment, but them we would just not play together.

Stating that this in inherently viable in-game because it works in the real world, and then basing that on one person demonstrating it in a slow kata does not persuade me.

Given the many limitations of dual shields, I'd be handing out a whole lot of homebrew to allow a player to do this. But I think the final result would still wind up being less than fun.

You would say the same with a sheild primary and dagger secondary, right?

[Jay R]

And here it is, the obligatory uneducated "doesn't even know RL fighting"-"dual shields are silly"-argument. :smallsigh:

Fighting with two shields is (https://youtu.be/VbdLr7A6W3s) very much a Real LifeTM martial arts style. (https://youtu.be/y9uILn0iCUs)

EDIT: Now please go back and correct yourself in that other thread where you put up the same lie. /EDIT

A. These sharpened over-large push-dagger/shield combos are not simple shields.
B. You have not shown their use in combat.
C. Even if one person, or a few people, made them work in combat in a rare situation, they are not a viable weaponstyle. I know of somebody attacked in a restaurant who used fork, spoon, plate, and salt & pepper shakers. That doesn't make it a combat style that would be taken by choice against deadly opponents. Similarly, my ranger has picked up a table and used it as a weapon. That doesn't mean he'll go into the wilderness wielding a table.
D. The D&D rules give shield punches more power, compared to sword blows, than they actually have. Wielding two weapons is using the rules to create something that doesn't fit within my idea of a medieval era fantasy game.
E. If somebody wanted to wield Hasayfu Tiger Head Shields, I'd consider it. They aren't normal shields; it would be an exotic weapon. We'd have to invent some specific rules for it. But that's not the same as just "dual-wielding shields"


Sounds very much like "you're having fun wrong."

No, it's "You're simulating combat in a way that is inconsistent with the game I'm running." If you want to have fun dual-wielding shields, then great. I hope you find the right game for that. It isn't mine.

D&D is a co-operative venture. We have to have common ground to play together. If my fun and yours aren't compatible, then we should play in different games. That's all.

[Tohsaka Rin]

"You're having non-disruptive fun, in a way that I don't approve of." This is the definition of the 'Stop having fun, guys' guy.

Really now, how much disruption is the player causing at the table, that you cannot run the game with a character that is using two shields to fight? Is it more disruptive than a Mailman build? An archer build that has hide cranked up so high that he cannot be spotted while he snipes from half a mile away, and completely stomps every encounter flat without the rest of the party lifting a finger?

I can think of very few things that are less disruptive at the table, than a guy who uses a pair of shields instead of a pair of swords.

[LTwerewolf]

Especially if the OP isn't at his table, where it's even more "you're having fun wrong."

[Zanos]

No, it's "You're simulating combat in a way that is inconsistent with the game I'm running." If you want to have fun dual-wielding shields, then great. I hope you find the right game for that. It isn't mine.
I initially thought you were being sarcastic, what with the reference to a clearly unrelated game. Apparently not.

Are we talking about the same game where using a sword to deal slashing damage to someone in full plate is a more effective way to kill them than by hitting them with a mace? Or the same game where a veteran warrior can absorb a blow with his face that would kill a novice one ten times over?

D&D is a very inaccurate simulation of real combat. You could also argue that nobody would fight with several of the weapons listed in the PHB, but the rules are there and some of them are quite effective, despite common sense.

[Barstro]

You would say the same with a sheild primary and dagger secondary, right?

Shield on my primary arm and trying to use a dagger with my off-hand? Not even sure how to attack like that. It's so odd (to me) that I cannot even come up with correct questions to ask about it.

[Barstro]

"You're having non-disruptive fun, in a way that I don't approve of." This is the definition of the 'Stop having fun, guys' guy.

That is a statement I would never make.

I prefer my games to follow written rules and to have some basis in modified reality. If the group I am with prefers fun a different way, I would begrudgingly deal with it (unlikely) or bow out because it's not my sort of game. I would never suggest that other people playing these games stop having fun in their own way.

EDIT: Eh, seems like Tohsaka Rin's response was to someone else.

[Tohsaka Rin]

That is a statement I would never make.

EDIT: Eh, seems like Tohsaka Rin's response was to someone else.

You are correct.

To you, I say 'never homebrew an answer, that has answers within the rules already'. If you can't picture someone fighting with a shield as their primary weapon, I suggest watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oyymnnfkf4). That's really the gold-standard right there, it's not hard to picture adding in a second weapon instead of unarmed strikes, after seeing that style of fighting.

[LTwerewolf]

Shield on my primary arm and trying to use a dagger with my off-hand? Not even sure how to attack like that. It's so odd (to me) that I cannot even come up with correct questions to ask about it.

You attack that way exactly the same as you wold reversed, except it's on the other hand.

[CharonsHelper]

You also might consider the Shield Trained trait - it has you to treat heavy shields as light weapons.

But other than a weak crit, TWF with heavy shields is very effective, especially for Rangers & Slayers (even better for Slayers due to their static damage boosts). Shield Trained (which Ranger & Slayer can get at level 6) lets you enchant them both for the same price as a single weapon, also boosting your AC.

But no - their AC bonuses don't stack. (though at higher levels you can give them different bonus abilities - fortification etc.)

[Ashtagon]

Just to demonstrate that a kata is essentially meaningless as a demonstrate of whether a given implement is useful as an actual weapon, here are some people demonstrating katas involving between zero and two two-foot long sticks, hoops, and balls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBWwm2Wysb8

Just like the two-shield guy in that other video, considerable agility and artistic precision is demonstrated. However, no one would seriously propose that these athletes were demonstrating combat form. And a slow-motion kata isn't demonstration of a combat form either.

D&D isn't an accurate simulation of combat. Quite apart from the unreality of many combat situations, it makes certain assumptions about how shields are used. The game design always assumed that a shield would be used in support of a more conventional 'weapon', and the stats chosen reflect that.

Finally, the way shield video guy's implements are held, they aren't shields as we'd conventionally recognise them. They are held close to the arm, with no effective "swivel point" to absorb the energy of the blow should the enemy strike a solid blow against the 'shield'. That is, they are functioning not so much as a shield, but more as a piece of armour mounted directly to the arm. It lacks a point of articulation that would be present when wielding a western style shield. That has serious consequences when using a shield to redirect the energy of an incoming attack. The two points at the base of the 'shield' are also something not found on any conventional shield. I'm not going to propose stats for it, except to note that it's more a weapon+armour combo than a weapon+shield combo.

[Barstro]

You attack that way exactly the same as you wold reversed, except it's on the other hand.

How is there not a difference when it was specifically stated that the shield was on the primary hand and the dagger was off-hand. In order for "primary" and "off-hand" to have any sort of meaning, then there must be a difference. If they have no meaning then the words should not be used.

Looking at it in real world (which is like dividing by zero, but I'll do it anyway), I've had experience with a sword in my dominant hand and very little experience with said sword and a main gauche as a defensive weapon. Switching the main gauche for a shield would not be too hard; all my training still has the weight, balance, and positions relatively the same. But swapping the sword for the shield instead has all my weight backwards and makes my main attack much weaker.

I'm sure that, in the game, anyone can pick up a rock and throw it left-handed just as well as right-handed. Not so for me.

Frankly, I can see (in the real world) two shield being more effective for me than primary shield, off-hand dagger.

[BearonVonMu]

Or were you thinking of the 3PP feat Two Shield Fighting (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/combat-feats/two-shield-fighting-combat)? If so, I think there are several better feats you should grab first.

Yes, that is the feat I meant.
I figured that someone who intended to use a shield as a weapon would already have a way to attack with it while maintaining the shield bonus to AC.
I also figured that someone who was dual-wielding would have those feats on hand.
A strange and not terribly common feat to blend the two looked to be the missing component.

Is it considered a bad thing to use the third party items posted to that site? You are the second person to refer to them specifically as third party.

[Barstro]

To you, I say 'never homebrew an answer, that has answers within the rules already'. If you can't picture someone fighting with a shield as their primary weapon, I suggest watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oyymnnfkf4). That's really the gold-standard right there, it's not hard to picture adding in a second weapon instead of unarmed strikes, after seeing that style of fighting.

1) I agree with your homebrew statement. I simply have yet to see rules that make double-shield actually viable. But I do enjoy this discussion.

2) A video of special effects still does not prove that it is viable.

[LTwerewolf]

How is there not a difference when it was specifically stated that the shield was on the primary hand and the dagger was off-hand. In order for "primary" and "off-hand" to have any sort of meaning, then there must be a difference. If they have no meaning then the words should not be used.



Because 3.5 and pathfinder don't recognize dominant and offhand. You're also not someone that fights for a living. I for example am equally trained in using a knife both right and left handed, even though I am right hand dominant. Being trained to right for a living makes a difference here, because unlike those trained to fight, your non-dominant hand doesn't see the same type of use as others. Anecdotal evidence based on your non-combat experience (and let's be clear: padded fencing is not the same as combat training) isn't very useful.

[Gallowglass]

Could a ranger take 2 weapon fighting and be carrying a light shield and a heavy shield, using both as weapons

Yup. There's a trait you can take too that would let you use two heavy shields because the trait lets you treat a heavy shield as a light weapon.


and, using improved shield bash, gain the AC of both?

Nope. Pick whichever one gives you the higher bonus, or whichever one has the special magical ability you want to use this round. Switch each round if you want.


Side note: When you have a straightforward question you can use the stickied "ask a question" threads for 3.5 and pathfinder at the top of the forum. If you do, then you generally won't be subjected to two pages of others telling you you are playing the game wrong because you aren't playing it like they do, instead you'll just get a rules answer. Usually.

[Tohsaka Rin]

1) I agree with your homebrew statement. I simply have yet to see rules that make double-shield actually viable. But I do enjoy this discussion.

2) A video of special effects still does not prove that it is viable.

Then I think you have a different definition of 'viable' than the average person (that plays dnd).

And, honestly, if you look at an action movie clip, and find that less viable to apply to a tabletop game about people using bat poop to conjure fire, than anything else you'd draw inspiration from, I think you're having some sort of weird disconnect.

I'm serious. I look at the clips, and I see 'fighter with two-weapon fighting, probably superior unarmed strike, and shield throw, I'd totally play that'. Pertinent to the thread, I'd swap fighter with ranger, to save a feat on two-weapon fighting,
and instead take improved shield bash. Heck, save the SUS feat for shield throw, and take combat expertise, too.

What do you see when you look at those clips? "Just a movie, nothing special"?

[Barstro]

Then I think you have a different definition of 'viable' than the average person (that plays dnd).

And, honestly, if you look at an action movie clip, and find that less viable to apply to a tabletop game about people using bat poop to conjure fire, than anything else you'd draw inspiration from, I think you're having some sort of weird disconnect.

1) Possibly.
2) I consider DnD to exist in a world where magic happens, but mundane things exist as they do in our reality. As such, manipulating the arcane with guano to create fire makes perfect sense. But using a form of fighting that, even if it meets a definition of "viable", pales in comparison to other forms of fighting given the same mechanics and training, is illogical. To go further into hyperbole; I have seen several movies where people can use chopsticks to remarkable effect. But having "chopstick" as weapon of choice when that same amount of training could go into "katana" is just not a good selection.

It isn't that I think someone is foolish for having a concept or playing the game the way he or she wants. It's that the choice is so far from optimal that any reasonable enemy of equal skill should almost always be able to defeat said PC.

As to your unquoted question; In the context of this discussion, I see it as a movie involving special effects that has little bearing on either this real world or the game. Looking at it in another context, I have fond memories of City of Heroes and, while far from my favorite archetype, I did enjoy my Shield Brute. As to the actual discussion at hand, I do not see how unarmed fighting and throwing a shield is related at all to using two shields and consider it akin to arguing that wielding two poniards is proven to be a good idea because of a scene in V for Vendetta where V was throwing knives one at a time.

I think that dual-wielding shields might work, but is more terrain dependent to prevent enemies from simply ignoring the moving wall. As such, it's a concept more for NPCs in a specific area of a dungeon.

[upho]

And my party will walk around that silly person to take out the actual threat.

Afterwards, the Bard will tell amusing stories so that this odd individual will kill himself while trying to clap in enjoyment at the fine tales.You seriously think you can walk around Captain Andoran? A guy that makes Captain America look like a comic book character? :smallbiggrin: Are you mad? He'll annihilate your entire party in the first round! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454387-Wolf-Trip-Shield-Champion-Intimidation-Martial-Control-of-Gravitas) :smallwink:


A. These sharpened over-large push-dagger/shield combos are not simple shields.And the shields listed in the weapons table of the CRB are?

B. You have not shown their use in combat.If you think katas aren't indicative enough, go check out any HEMA training session involving shields, based on actual historical documents, and you'll find plenty of examples of shields being used as weapons in combat, from viking period large round shields to late medieval bucklers. Even of huge "tower shields" being wielded two-handed. Shields are weapons, in RL as well as in the game (and I believe the latter is actually the only fact that should matter).

C. Even if one person, or a few people, made them work in combat in a rare situation, they are not a viable weaponstyle. I know of somebody attacked in a restaurant who used fork, spoon, plate, and salt & pepper shakers. That doesn't make it a combat style that would be taken by choice against deadly opponents. Similarly, my ranger has picked up a table and used it as a weapon. That doesn't mean he'll go into the wilderness wielding a table.So, you've tried wielding a dire flail or a double axe in RL? How 'bout a throwing shield? These and plenty of other weapons would be utter garbage in RL and not even remotely close to as viable as dual-wielding shields, but still they exist in PF/D&D. Do you also ban all of these, along with all of the fundamentally unrealistic combat rules?

D. The D&D rules give shield punches more power, compared to sword blows, than they actually have. Wielding two weapons is using the rules to create something that doesn't fit within MY SPECIFIC EQUALLY UNREALISTIC IDEA of a medieval era fantasy game THAT DOESN'T FOLLOW RAW.Fixed that for you! :smalltongue:


No, it's "You're simulating combat in a way that is inconsistent with the game I'm running." If you want to have fun dual-wielding shields, then great. I hope you find the right game for that. It isn't mine.

D&D is a co-operative venture. We have to have common ground to play together. If my fun and yours aren't compatible, then we should play in different games. That's all.First, the combat rules makes for an awful combat simulator. If you want realistic combat, I believe you should play another game altogether.

Second, and most importantly, this isn't what you initially said. Instead, you said "Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game." That is frankly a pretty awful "bad-wrong-fun"-attitude, especially since the rules allow for dual-wielding shields with no amount of cheese involved whatsoever, AND there are RL examples of such a combat style.


Really, in a game where you can sing and dance to power other people up, or use bat poop to make fire explosions, and gnomes, I can't believe there still exist people that say 'no, that's silly, you're not allowed to enjoy the game that way'.

Don't be the 'stop having fun, guys' person. That's not what DnD is for.This.


Are we talking about the same game where using a sword to deal slashing damage to someone in full plate is a more effective way to kill them than by hitting them with a mace? Or the same game where a veteran warrior can absorb a blow with his face that would kill a novice one ten times over?

D&D is a very inaccurate simulation of real combat. You could also argue that nobody would fight with several of the weapons listed in the PHB, but the rules are there and some of them are quite effective, despite common sense.And this.

[upho]

Yes, that is the feat I meant.
I figured that someone who intended to use a shield as a weapon would already have a way to attack with it while maintaining the shield bonus to AC.
I also figured that someone who was dual-wielding would have those feats on hand.
A strange and not terribly common feat to blend the two looked to be the missing component.

Is it considered a bad thing to use the third party items posted to that site? You are the second person to refer to them specifically as third party.Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad recommendation to check this feat out, so I'm sorry if my post made it look as if that was my opinion.

And I love d20pfsrd. It's not the site itself that may be a problem, it's the feat not being published by Paizo. So when using the site to give recommendations, it's usually a good idea to check the source of the bottom of the page and state that your recommendation is from a 3PP, since many (most?) games don't allow 3PP options.

[Tohsaka Rin]

As to the actual discussion at hand, I do not see how unarmed fighting and throwing a shield is related at all to using two shields and consider it akin to arguing that wielding two poniards is proven to be a good idea because of a scene in V for Vendetta where V was throwing knives one at a time.

I think that dual-wielding shields might work, but is more terrain dependent to prevent enemies from simply ignoring the moving wall. As such, it's a concept more for NPCs in a specific area of a dungeon.

Firstly, that was an example of 'this thing looks cool, can I do it? Yes, two or three feats make it perfectly viable, because the game's rules say so'. That's all you need to make just able any idea viable. Do the rules support it? Usually, most of the time, the answer is a resounding 'yes'.

As for dual-wielding shields, you're picturing someone just kind of... Hanging out? Maybe pushing people with the shields?

I picture someone with two large hunks of very hard metal, smashing teeth out of anyone dumb enough to try and brush past the wielder, because they thought 'oh, shields, that's useless'.

And lastly, chopsticks (https://youtu.be/tgNeoRM3esk?t=88). Chopsticks (https://youtu.be/UHOXbfjWJsU?t=5). Chopsticks (https://youtu.be/WcirWWUFu5s?t=11). What did you think the improvised weapon ability from the Drunken Master PrC, and the Throw Anything feat was for?

Why do I bring this up? Because if a player shows you those clips, then says 'I wanna do that, here's the feats that allow me to do this', and you say 'no, you're better off taking a katana', what do you follow up with, when the player says 'but I wanted to have fun'?

I think you've confused 'viable' with 'optimal', now that I think about it.

[Gallowglass]

Why do I bring this up? Because if a player shows you those clips, then says 'I wanna do that, here's the feats that allow me to do this', and you say 'no, you're better off taking a katana', what do you follow up with, when the player says 'but I wanted to have fun'?


"Sorry, I don't like that wushu bull****, I like my melee to be gritty and realistic!"

"Oh. Okay. ... I'll make a wizard."

[Zhentarim]

You also might consider the Shield Trained trait - it has you to treat heavy shields as light weapons.

But other than a weak crit, TWF with heavy shields is very effective, especially for Rangers & Slayers (even better for Slayers due to their static damage boosts). Shield Trained (which Ranger & Slayer can get at level 6) lets you enchant them both for the same price as a single weapon, also boosting your AC.

But no - their AC bonuses don't stack. (though at higher levels you can give them different bonus abilities - fortification etc.)
Sheild trained sounds pretty neat!

[Zhentarim]

You seriously think you can walk around Captain Andoran? A guy that makes Captain America look like a comic book character? :smallbiggrin: Are you mad? He'll annihilate your entire party in the first round! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?454387-Wolf-Trip-Shield-Champion-Intimidation-Martial-Control-of-Gravitas) :smallwink:

And the shields listed in the weapons table of the CRB are?
If you think katas aren't indicative enough, go check out any HEMA training session involving shields, based on actual historical documents, and you'll find plenty of examples of shields being used as weapons in combat, from viking period large round shields to late medieval bucklers. Even of huge "tower shields" being wielded two-handed. Shields are weapons, in RL as well as in the game (and I believe the latter is actually the only fact that should matter).
So, you've tried wielding a dire flail or a double axe in RL? How 'bout a throwing shield? These and plenty of other weapons would be utter garbage in RL and not even remotely close to as viable as dual-wielding shields, but still they exist in PF/D&D. Do you also ban all of these, along with all of the fundamentally unrealistic combat rules?
Fixed that for you! :smalltongue:

First, the combat rules makes for an awful combat simulator. If you want realistic combat, I believe you should play another game altogether.

Second, and most importantly, this isn't what you initially said. Instead, you said "Nobody would fight with two shields. Quit being silly and play the game." That is frankly a pretty awful "bad-wrong-fun"-attitude, especially since the rules allow for dual-wielding shields with no amount of cheese involved whatsoever, AND there are RL examples of such a combat style.

This.

And this.

I saw a video at one point of a japanese lady taking down 5 guys with an umbrella

[CharonsHelper]

Sheild trained sounds pretty neat!

Indeed. Though admittedly, it's a bit redundant after you get Shield Master if you're TWF with only heavy shields since Shield Master negates all of the penalties for TWF, not just reducing them.

[animewatcha]

Without the necessary 10 or so levels of barbarian, what are the ways of getting pounce? I know they were reduced in pathfinder. I ask because more shield bashes the better especially if charging into group of multiple mooks.

Another reason for asking would be for feat combination and specific magic item reasons that go great for 2 shields at once.

[AnimeTheCat]

It's my understanding that "main hand" and "off hand" is determined by the player and which weapon/attack they desire to use first, not be dominant/non-dominant or left/right hands. For example, you're fighting undead and you have a shortword in one hand and a light shield in the other, and you choose to bash with the shield first and slash with the short sword second. You may be dominant right handed (where the short sword is) but your primary attack is your non-dominant (left hand) shield. You put more effort in to hitting with that attack. There aren't any rules governing dominant/non-dominant hands in 3.5 (I think there were in 3.0 but I can't remember to be honest).

Then there's the question of "Are shields weapons". In my opinion, yes. In the books, they have listed damages on the tables. In my opinion and experience, the flat front of a shield can really hurt and put your on your tail bone. The blunt edge can really do a number on plate armor and you seriously feel it through chainmail and padded leather armors. So yes!

I used to do live steel reenactments and one of the most common ways to use shields were to essentially punch with them along the edge towards your opponents face, chest, or arm, or use it to bat a weapon out of the way or push your opponent to the ground to stab their skull through the eye slit of their helmet. Using a shield in both hands may seem unconventional or improvised, but it is actually quite simple when you think of all the different ways you can use a shield to overcome different types of defenses. Now you can bat a weapon out of the way and bulldoze in to someone then proceed to smash their helmet in while you're on top of them. Or, you could use the edge to knock the wind out of someone wearing less than plate, thereby disabling them temporarily and, again using the edge, deliver an uppercut and crushing their wind pipe with the edge of your shield. Additionally, if you're using a kite shield and your mounting in in a vertical direction, you will have a point that you can literally thrust with and deliver something of a "piercing" damage type, easily penetrating chainmail and lightweight leather armors. there are LOTS of ways to use a shield, and if you're trained in using a shield in your off hand, you can rest assured that you'll be comfortable using one in your main hand as a weapon. If I'm able to rip a shield off of an opponent in a live steel exhibition and I later get my weapon pulled from me, it may in fact be easier to pick up my opponents shield from the ground and finishing them in that manner. There isn't some complex battle style necessary to beat someone's face in with a blunt object. You just need the strength and determination to do so.

I'm not saying that dual shields were a commonplace thing in historical medieval times, but I can say with certainty that there are people who did it and lived. In a real battle, you're not going to be able to be fancy and rely on precise movements and training. You're going to be smashed up in the other guy's face, trying to remove him from the fight before he does, regardless of how you do it. D&D doesn't cater to reality in any shape form or fashion. If it did, 6 second combat turns with limited attacks wouldn't be a thing. I can swing a mace way more than once in 6 seconds, each with equal lethality, and I would consider myself a first or second level fighter. If you want realism, you have to be a little lenient with D&D. If you consider D&D nothing more than reality with magic, I'm glad I live in my reality because I don't want it to be impossible to spot the sun (I'm talking about the original spot rules).

Rant Done. TL;DR: Main hand/off hand is not the same as dominant/non-dominant hand, and shield are totally weapons and IRL it's totally viable to use two of them due to high number of striking surfaces and various things to do with them besides blocking incoming blows.

[upho]

I saw a video at one point of a japanese lady taking down 5 guys with an umbrellaHa ha! Yes, never underestimate 'em little ladies with umbrellas... :smallbiggrin:

Back on topic, I think I should expand a bit on my previous recommendations, especially about the superior shield enchantments, since they may also determine what shenanigans that are particularly suitable for your build to focus on outside of the strictly shield related stuff. The 3d6 damage die from bashing (on a heavy spiked shield while enlarged) is of course pretty good (and damn cheap) for a weapon you can TWF with, especially before higher levels when the many attacks of a TWF:er can make weapons with greater crit ranges superior DPR tools. But I think a much greater potential advantage of a dual shield wielder is found in the two mentioned control related specific magic shields (both of which are also bashing) - maelstrom (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor/specific-magic-shields/maelstrom-shield)and tempest (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-armor/specific-magic-shields/tempest-shield)- despite the fact you won't be able to threaten nearly as great an area as a typical melee control build using a reach weapon.

The free trip of the maelstrom is of course awesome against any opponent you're able to trip, and can boost damage along with your control power considerably simply by grabbing Combat Reflexes and Greater Trip. If you also add Wolf Trip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/wolf-trip-wolf-style) and Vicious Stomp (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/vicious-stomp-combat) (usually easiest via a 1-level dip into Master of Many Styles monk), you get plenty of lockdown power along with even more damage through additional AoOs. Every attack you make thus has the potential to trigger two additional full bab attacks from both you and your allies, while robbing your enemy of (all) its movement speed(s) and knocking it prone in the worst position available adjacent to you. Pretty darn devastating, but will unfortunately not work against an increasing ratio of opponents in most games the higher up the levels you get (due to flight, size differences or other flat immunity to trip). And if you wanna go really bananas, you combine this with Ascetic Style, having your Vicious stomp AoO shield bashes capable of triggering yet additional bull rushes and AoOs from your allies.

Pump your trip CMB at a serious discount with the dueling (PSFG version) (http://archivesofnethys.com/MagicWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Dueling%20(PSFG) ) weapon enchant, add the usual trip boosters and perhaps also fortuitous (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/fortuitous) (for even more AoOs and free bull rushes) and/or phase locking (if doing lockdown, expensive) weapon enchants later on.

The Siegebreaker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/siegebreaker-fighter-archetype) fighter was seemingly made just so tempest shield wielders could dip two levels and win! Add Greater Bull Rush, Greater Overrun and maybe Charge Through, and you've turned yourself into a total "bashing bowling ball bully", ready to score strike after strike on the enemy pins! :smalltongue: Has the same problem with size differences as trip in higher levels, but is fortunately not as commonly ignored via other abilities.

Complement with a pair of Pauldrons of the Bull (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/m-p/pauldrons-of-the-bull), the impact (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/magic-weapons/magic-weapon-special-abilities/impact) weapon enchant and perhaps a Gorgon's Belt (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/a-b/belt-gorgon), besides the usual CMB boosters (gauntlets, iouns, titanic armor, luckstones etc).

If you get one shield of each and manage to find the room for all related dips, feats and items, you might wanna find some sort of RL shield for Qwanch as well, to protect from all those heavy books the DM is likely to throw... :smallbiggrin:

Finally, of special note here is that RAW, the free trip/bull rush attempt granted by these shields are made independently of the attack the combat maneuver accompanies being successful, thus they always use your full bab, can be made before or after the shield bash (and the following Shield Slam bull rush) are resolved, and can accompany shield bashes made both in and outside of your turn (for example as AoOs, despite being free actions, according to FAQ regarding free action combat maneuvers triggered by hits).


Rant Done. TL;DR: Main hand/off hand is not the same as dominant/non-dominant hand, and shield are totally weapons and IRL it's totally viable to use two of them due to high number of striking surfaces and various things to do with them besides blocking incoming blows.All true. I also want to highlight your note regarding striking surfaces, since it appears to me many people aren't aware many shields are designed for more than making the occasional boss bash, often having a central handle allowing for swiftly turning the shield and using the greater range of the (sometimes sharpened/pointed) edge/rim. And some of the larger shields from the thirteen and fourteen hundreds, such as the dueling shields (https://youtu.be/z9VG4ClQcJk?list=PL73820F28FD4C9D6B&t=72), were also designed for 2-handed use.

Totally OT: What you're saying here is also very much what my own limited experiences from HEMA fighting in plate and modern protective gear have been (admittedly mostly longsword). A related funny personal anecdote is that I've previously trained some kendo and tried a little bit of naginatajutsu, but despite having had the "honor" of being ridiculously outclassed by a few quite famous names in those sports, I've never been quite so utterly humiliated and have never taken quite such a beating as I did when I got to try longsword against an instructor (from GHFS (http://www.ghfs.se/)) doing rapier and buckler...

In short, I flailed about ineffectively, my attacks being easily deflected by the buckler, and while I was at most managing to parry a few of his lazier rapier attacks from distance, my clumsy feints were never even remotely close to have him separate his guard or to keep him from closing. And every time he tricked me into over-extending and opening myself for him to close, I got thoroughly and soundly destroyed by swift cuts and bashes while he expertly avoided being caught in an actual clinch. Of course I never managed to hit anything while in some silly off-balance position, being cut off from using my sword effectively. He even got me to trip over my own feet at one point as I was doing some kind of awkward backwards pirouette trying to free my sword and regain distance, and I hit the floor with about as much grace as a pregnant walrus. Thus he managed to simultaneously floor the thankfully few onlookers as well, who were all rolling about in hysterical fits of laughter... :smallredface:

While this guy of course could play me like a violin (or rather a drum) using rapier and dagger or longsword as well, I could at least do some things right and I could usually tell what I did wrong and have reasonable ideas about what I should've done instead. Against the rapier and buckler, I just felt at a complete loss, doing everything wrong and never really having a clue why my sword kept slicing air while I was getting gutted and having my face smashed in. I'm pretty certain he would've beaten me just as easily wielding two bucklers, deflecting my attacks and "boxing" me to pulp with rims and bosses. And considering a buckler is such a serious pain in the hands of a pro, I can only imagine what a weapon a larger and nastier shield can be!

[Florian]

Two Shield can be made top work, but why should you, especially on a ranger?
Looking at what a Fighter can do with a Maelstrom Shield and a Glaive, this question gets even more pronounced.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Two Shield can be made top work, but why should you, especially on a ranger?
Looking at what a Fighter can do with a Maelstrom Shield and a Glaive, this question gets even more pronounced.

Because sometimes people want to play a neat/fun idea they came up with, rather than the most powerful or optimal thing.

[grarrrg]

Two Shield can be made top work, but why should you, especially on a ranger?

Because Rangers can cheat some nice shield feats a LOT sooner than other classes.
Shield Slam (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-slam-combat---final) at level 2 instead of 6+
And the oh-so-tasty Shield Master (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shield-master-combat---final) at level 6 instead of 11+