two shields

[kaskavel]

I have found old discussions about this issue, emphasizing on other things than the one I am interested (2 tower shields, 2 off hands, attacking with 1 of the shields etc)
But my specific question is if a player is allowed to weild 2 shields (not tower, not even bucklers if you like), while not attacking. Just to take both +2 bonuses while covering a prone or dying ally or something. The rules seem to not allow this, but it seems unnatural to me. If the player does nothing but defending, then he should be able to get both bonuses I think...

[zlefin]

there's many cases where the rules are weird and don't make sense. this is just another of them; RAW they can't do this. if you wanna houserule it to allow it, go ahead.

[SirNibbles]

You can wield two shields but, since they both provide a shield bonus to AC, only the highest one applies.

I don't understand what else you're trying to ask.

[kaskavel]

You can wield two shields but, since they both provide a shield bonus to AC, only the highest one applies.

I don't understand what else you're trying to ask.

Yes, the rules are clear, but not necessarily logical. Most of the time it makes sense to only have 1 shield, but in defense mode...why not 2 shield bonuses? A guy in total defence with 2 shields, surrounded by enemies should logicaly have a higher AC than a guy with 1 shield

[tedcahill2]

Yes, the rules are clear, but not necessarily logical. Most of the time it makes sense to only have 1 shield, but in defense mode...why not 2 shield bonuses? A guy in total defence with 2 shields, surrounded by enemies should logicaly have a higher AC than a guy with 1 shield

You have to remember the the whole combat system is intentionally very abstract. Things like only getting 1 attack every 6 seconds (the length of 1 round) is based on the assumption that you are attacking, dodging, parrying, etc for the entire 6 seconds, but only one might actually hit. You aren't just standing there swinging once every 6 seconds.

The idea behind two shields can be argued in the same fashion. You don't get the shield bonus from simply holding the item, you are assumed to be actively defending with them, moving the shields to block attacks. Just like two weapon fighting comes with a penalty to attacks, you could argue that defending with to shields comes at a similar penalty, effectively canceling out the benefit of having two shields in the first place.

[zlefin]

setting aside the rules; I have very little actual experience but i'd expect it depends in part on what you're facing (and how well you can multi-task in combat); against a single foe, I do'nt think two shields would help much (maybe vs a dual wielder?); against multiple foes it's going to be more helpful, but i'd suspect it'd mess with your balance quite a bit (bracing for a shield hit to not get knocked over matters, but having to brace multiple directions might get hard).
having a weapon/shield would often be just as good. your opponent doesn't know whether you're going to attack or not; the threat of being able to attack/counter helps keep an opponent back some; without a weapon you can't threaten that so well.

at any rate; having two tower shields really wouldn't combo well; tower shields are very unwieldy.


reminds me of something about the old old rules; I vagueyl recall back in dnd 1.0 or somesuch; that a shield had a limit on how many attacks/round it helped vs.

[Necroticplague]

Yes, the rules are clear, but not necessarily logical. Most of the time it makes sense to only have 1 shield, but in defense mode...why not 2 shield bonuses? A guy in total defence with 2 shields, surrounded by enemies should logicaly have a higher AC than a guy with 1 shield

I don't see why this is the case. How would you use two shield to block a blow? You want an attack to hit the dead center of the shield, where you arm can most support it. Trying to use two shields would cancel out because of this, since you'd essentially be blocking with the edge of two shields. instead of the center of one. The benefit of having a larger surface area of metal between you and him would be countered by the more awkward (and less effective) defensive stance you'd to take advantage of it. Just like how it's easier to slip past two blockers than to tackle one head one, so to should it seem easier to hit someone between two shield edges than through one shield face.

[kaskavel]

I don't see why this is the case. How would you use two shield to block a blow? You want an attack to hit the dead center of the shield, where you arm can most support it. Trying to use two shields would cancel out because of this, since you'd essentially be blocking with the edge of two shields. instead of the center of one. The benefit of having a larger surface area of metal between you and him would be countered by the more awkward (and less effective) defensive stance you'd to take advantage of it. Just like how it's easier to slip past two blockers than to tackle one head one, so to should it seem easier to hit someone between two shield edges than through one shield face.

This makes sense in man-to man, but that was not the situation in my game. The player wanted to cover up allied healing activity behind him and rushed forward, ending up surrounded by enemies. He (quite provocatively) stopped in a position where he would be surrounded next round by 5 enemies. He declared a total defense and also said (before moving) that he wanted to draw a second shield. I denied him the extra +2, but I can't stop thinking that that was illogical

[Necroticplague]

This makes sense in man-to man, but that was not the situation in my game. The player wanted to cover up allied healing activity behind him and rushed forward, ending up surrounded by enemies. He (quite provocatively) stopped in a position where he would be surrounded next round by 5 enemies. He declared a total defense and also said (before moving) that he wanted to draw a second shield. I denied him the extra +2, but I can't stop thinking that that was illogical

Unless you had physiology vastly different from that of a normal human, I'm still not seeing any way you could bring a second shield to bear without sacrificing the effectiveness of the first.

[SirNibbles]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/combatFacing.htm

This variant enhances the realism a bit and you gain a benefit from wielding more than one shield, but it's actually a nerf compared to wielding a single shield without facing.

___

On a side note, Matt Easton did a video about dual wielding shields (dual shielding).

His conclusions, summed up:
-it wasn't done historically (no historical source which describes such an act)
-it could be done, but it's not as effective as weapon and shield
-a context in which your job was solely to protect someone else (blocking missiles from hitting siege weapon operators or nobles) may make two shields reasonable, but it was still never done historically

He didn't mention the situation of running up to a big group and letting them surround you because that's suicidal and nobody would do that.

___

With two shields, you probably would gain some protection, but being flanked would probably negate any benefit.

[Inevitability]

One way to get a benefit from two shields (other than having both carry other enchantments), is by making one of them out of riverine. This turns half of its shield bonus into a deflection bonus, which does stack with the other shield's AC bonus.

[Gullintanni]

A spiked shield can have its spikes enchanted with the Defending property for an AC bump as well.

[Ashtagon]

I'd house-rule that if you have two shields and are using them as shields, you can't be flanked. But you don't get to stack the shield bonus. That makes it technically helpful in teh case of a guy charging into a flanking situation. But you'd better have back-up nearby, because you aren't making any attacks that way.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You can take the total defense action and/or use a tower shield. That's +4 dodge bonus to AC and total cover. Since a prone character can occupy the same square as a standing character, you could stand over them, providing cover, while highly resistant to attack yourself.

[Darrin]

In general, using two shields doesn't work because the two shield bonuses don't stack with each other. You could fight TWF-style, shield-bashing with both shields and using either Oversized TWF or Agile Shield Fighter to offset the penalties, but it's a little feat-intensive.

There are at least two methods to get a mechanical benefit from using two shields:

1) Make one shield out of riverine (Stormwrack). Half of the shield bonus becomes a deflection bonus, which will stack with the other shield bonus.

2) Take the Inlindl School [style] feat from Drow of the Underdark. This allows you to convert your shield bonus into an attack bonus for light/finessable weapons.

[Gruftzwerg]

In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover,

What I want to say is:

Use one (tower) shield for the AC bonus and the other tower shield for total cover. Now you are making use of both. ;)

[Thurbane]

Two Shields:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?213995
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286574
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397119
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?468714
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?524455

...the usual advise is use one shield as a shield, and the other as a weapon. Tooth of Savnok (Greater Magic Weapon CL 20) + Defending Shield Spikes, or some-such.

Or avoid the whole mess, grab an animated heavy shield, and attack with a two-hander.

[Gruftzwerg]

Two Shields:
*sniped links*

...the usual advise is use one shield as a shield, and the other as a weapon. Tooth of Savnok (Greater Magic Weapon CL 20) + Defending Shield Spikes, or some-such.

Or avoid the whole mess, grab an animated heavy shield, and attack with a two-hander.

You can attack twohanded with your shield too.
So the combo: "Animated Shield for AC and attack with your other spiked shield 2h" would work too.

To get the turn back to the topic, when you want to give up your attacks to offer a teammate more protection.

several options:

a) set up a tower shield for cover

b) use one shield for your own AC, while you use the other (attacking) shield to "Aid Another" and give your mate a +2AC bonus. It ain't the full shield bonus. But hey, you have no special training (aka special ability/feat whatsoever) to improve this (which you could have..)

c) Maneuvers.. like "Shield Block": as Immediate Action, give your teammate your shield AC + 4 against a single attack

Dunno of feats right of the head (but I think there was something similar too..), but could be another option to search for abilities that could "further improve/give more options for" this scenario.

[Demonique]

I've been asked about a character wielding two shields, but that particular character had 4 arms...
I just invented a feat - two shield fighting (similar in concept to two weapon fighting) where the character gets the bonus from both shields.
Shield enchantments, however, due to the nature of +X to Y, don't stack.

-Demi-

[Gruftzwerg]

I've been asked about a character wielding two shields, but that particular character had 4 arms...
I just invented a feat - two shield fighting (similar in concept to two weapon fighting) where the character gets the bonus from both shields.
Shield enchantments, however, due to the nature of +X to Y, don't stack.

-Demi-

there is already one:
Agile Shield Fighter

lowers twf penalties to -2 each when your offhand attack is with a shield (thus double shield qualifies).