Weird Character Idea

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Just as the perennial weakness of chargers is low AC, one of the major flaws of two weapon fighting is low to-hit.

I think I've found one of the more... convoluted ways of getting around that.

First some context. Troacctid recently pointed out that when using Weapon Finesse, you suffer the armor check penalty of any shields your using on your to-hit. That rather blindsided me, and got me looking more closely at the feat. Turns out it's the prerequisite for two feats, both from Drow of the Underdark. The first, Aleval School is a weird feat in its own right, potentially useful for Staggering Strike builds, but it's not what I'm talking about here today. No, that's the second feat, Inlindl School.

Inlindl School lets you lose your shield bonuses to AC in exchange for half that as a bonus to your attack rolls until the start of your next turn. So far so mediocre, it's just a half-rate Heedless Charge. But here's the thing. I don't think it matters if you have redundant sources of shield bonus. So if you have multiple shields (say, two magic bucklers and a third animated shield of some flavor), the shield bonuses don't stack for your AC (unless one of them is riverine, but that's besides the point), but they are definitely all shield bonuses, and you could use Inlindl School to add all of them to your attack rolls. The bonuses of the bucklers drop to zero once you attack with a weapon in that hand, but that doesn't matter because Inlindl School happens at the start of the round, before any attacks.

Weird, huh? Probably not the most effective path for optimization, but if you could get a high enough shield bonus (or enough different shield bonuses) from somewhere, you could start combining it with Power Attack, maybe throw in Shock Trooper and Pounce to actually come out ahead on your attack rolls and land some of those iteratives while still having higher AC than a typical charger because of your high Dex... could be interesting.


CLARIFYING EDIT: I'm suggesting that having multiple shield bonuses to AC (e.g. a buckler on each arm and an animated shield) wouldn't stack for calculating AC, but could all be used to power Inlindl School. Certainly not that you could carry a backpack full of shields to boost your attack bonus.

[pabelfly]

You can't stack the same type of bonus, though, and I imagine any DM would make you take your highest shield bonus only and use that for improving to-hit.

There's also the matter of taking three feats that you don't really want to take to get this "trick" when there are a lot of easier ways to go about improving your to-hit than doing this.

[MisterKaws]

You can't stack the same type of bonus, though, and I imagine any DM would make you take your highest shield bonus only and use that for improving to-hit.

There's also the matter of taking three feats that you don't really want to take to get this "trick" when there are a lot of easier ways to go about improving your to-hit than doing this.

Yup, bonuses from the same source don't stack.

[Vizzerdrix]

What about dastana?

[DrMotives]

What about dastana?

Dastana is a stacking armor bonus, so it's an exception to the general rule, and not one that helps in this particular case.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I realize shield bonuses don't stack, but I was positing that even though they don't stack, you still have multiple bonuses that can independently power Inlindl School. This kind of assumes that a) the bonus to-hit granted by the feat is typeless, and b) the DM is on board with this admittedly sub-optimal form of optimization.

I guess you could argue that stacking like this falls afoul of the "same source" rule even if the bonuses are typeless, but while that's a valid interpretation, I'd counter-argue that since it's all done at the same time your bonus to-hit is really just one use of Inlindl School, and therefore a single source. YMMV.

[pabelfly]

I realize shield bonuses don't stack, but I was positing that even though they don't stack, you still have multiple bonuses that can independently power Inlindl School. This kind of assumes that a) the bonus to-hit granted by the feat is typeless, and b) the DM is on board with this admittedly sub-optimal form of optimization.

I guess you could argue that stacking like this falls afoul of the "same source" rule even if the bonuses are typeless, but while that's a valid interpretation, I'd counter-argue that since it's all done at the same time your bonus to-hit is really just one use of Inlindl School, and therefore a single source. YMMV.

If there's two ways to interpret a rule, and one is reasonable and the other broken, you should assume that the reasonable interpretation was the one that was intended.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

If there's two ways to interpret a rule, and one is reasonable and the other broken, you should assume that the reasonable interpretation was the one that was intended.

"Broken" is a very strong word for what is going on here. We're looking at half-again the exchange rate of Heedless Charge (with a lower maximum) for three feats and three magic items. I'd have described my interpretation as "almost adequate", compared to the intended use of the feat as "worthless".

[pabelfly]

"Broken" is a very strong word for what is going on here. We're looking at half-again the exchange rate of Heedless Charge (with a lower maximum) for three feats and three magic items. I'd have described my interpretation as "almost adequate", compared to the intended use of the feat as "worthless".

The way you want the rule to work is that you could have as many shields as can carry and somehow turn half of the AC bonus of each into separate additions to your attack rolls. Seems broken to me.

[RNightstalker]

You said in your explanation that you get to add your shield "bonuses" but the feat itself says shield bonus, as in you only get one shield bonus for your AC, and that's the one you can use for Inlindl School.

[Crake]

You said in your explanation that you get to add your shield "bonuses" but the feat itself says shield bonus, as in you only get one shield bonus for your AC, and that's the one you can use for Inlindl School.

This seems like the most straightforward reading to me too. In addition, the way it's worded, it seems to be not so much removing your shield bonus and giving you a new bonus, but instead reallocating your shield bonus away from AC, and applying it instead to your attacks, so redundant shield bonuses wouldn't even help in keeping your AC up, as those redundant shield bonuses would likewise be applied to attacks, and would suffer from stacking issues.

[False God]

I realize shield bonuses don't stack, but I was positing that even though they don't stack, you still have multiple bonuses that can independently power Inlindl School. This kind of assumes that a) the bonus to-hit granted by the feat is typeless, and b) the DM is on board with this admittedly sub-optimal form of optimization.
No, you don't.

You only get an Shield bonus from a shield while it is worn. Carrying a dozen of them in your backpack doesn't grant you a shield bonus.

You wear a shield, you get a shield bonus.

You put a shield in your backpack, you don't have a shield bonus.

The feat pretty clearly says your shield bonus. Which an unequipped shield does not grant you.

[Crake]

No, you don't.

You only get an Shield bonus from a shield while it is worn. Carrying a dozen of them in your backpack doesn't grant you a shield bonus.

You wear a shield, you get a shield bonus.

You put a shield in your backpack, you don't have a shield bonus.

The feat pretty clearly says your shield bonus. Which an unequipped shield does not grant you.

Well, I mean, you can still have multiple shield bonuses. A worn shield, an animated shield, and a shield spell are all possible at the same time, providing 3 different shield bonuses to AC, but since shield bonuses don't stack, only the highest applies.

But as I stated earlier, the way the feat is worded, it's not that you lose your shield bonus, it's that your shield bonus ceases to apply to AC and instead applies to attacks.

[False God]

Well, I mean, you can still have multiple shield bonuses. A worn shield, an animated shield, and a shield spell are all possible at the same time, providing 3 different shield bonuses to AC, but since shield bonuses don't stack, only the highest applies.
I mean I guess that depends on how you define "having" a bonus. I would argue that any bonus that is not currently applying to you for *whatever reason* you don't actually have. Be it trumped by some other effect or suppressed for some reasons or whatever.

So your two lesser Shield Bonuses you don't actually "have" until you eliminate the highest effect. And no, using this feat doesn't eliminate it, it just makes it apply somewhere else. It's still a "Shield Bonus" it just applies to attacks now.


But as I stated earlier, the way the feat is worded, it's not that you lose your shield bonus, it's that your shield bonus ceases to apply to AC and instead applies to attacks.
Well sure I'm not arguing that point.

Honestly I don't even really see the point of trying to build this. Unless you're gonna go all Captain America in Wakanda and dual-wield shields as your weapons. Which I mean, as a DM I might allow that. Just because.

Otherwise "but I have another shield in my pocket!" is just silly.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I feel compelled to clarify that I was not suggesting carrying a backpack full of shields would let you add all of them. That would be madness. I think we're all in agreement there. I was suggesting a buckler on each arm (has to be enchanted to at least +1 if you want to do more than break even)1 and a third animated shield hovering around your body. Shield and similar spells could make good additional - if temporary - sources.

Hmm, now that I think about it, Thri-Kreen would be a good race for this. Lots of attacks so they benefit from any bonus to attack rolls, and four arms for wearing bucklers (although now the GP cost of this trick is starting to get up there). Can Diopsids where bucklers on their lower arms?


1. Unless you're using unarmed strikes with your legs, or otherwise getting around the "-1 to all attacks with this arm" restriction bucklers have. +1 instead of +3 because you have two bucklers, but the penalty to-hit is only -1 on each arm, so a net +2 from the feat gives you 'profits'.

[KillianHawkeye]

There should be a feat for using multiple shields at once. Surely, using two shields should offer more defense than just one!

[PoeticallyPsyco]

There should be a feat for using multiple shields at once. Surely, using two shields should offer more defense than just one!

Yeah, the closest you can come to that is having one shield made of the Riverine (Stormwrack) special material. Half the shield bonus becomes a deflection bonus, which does stack with your other shield.