Is a 2-handed shield bash getting x2 power attack damage legal?

two

First Post

• Nov 21, 2003

• #1

Subject says it all.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

T

Taren Seeker

First Post

• Nov 21, 2003

• #2

If it is a heavy shield, yes. If a light shield, you can't PA at all.

 

Camarath

Pale Master Tarrasque

• Nov 21, 2003

• #3

I believe it is legal since I can not find a rule that would prevent it.

 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...

• Nov 21, 2003

• #4

Camarath said:

I believe it is legal since I can not find a rule that would prevent it.

Click to expand...

It depends on how your DM interprets "You can bash wish a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon".

Some would say that means it can only be wielded in your off-hand, which would preclude using it two-handed...

-Hyp.

 

Camarath

Pale Master Tarrasque

• Nov 21, 2003

• #5

Hypersmurf said:

Some would say that means it can only be wielded in your off-hand, which would preclude using it two-handed...

Click to expand...

Hypersmurf would you mind proving that being used as an off-hand weapon would preclude a weapon from being used two-handed. As I see it "as an off-hand weapon" does not mean "with your off-hand".

 

Last edited: Nov 21, 2003

CCamfield

First Post

• Nov 21, 2003

• #6

I know that bringing it reality doesn't necessarily make sense with D&D, but how the heck would you actually wield a shield two-handed? If you took it off your arm and grabbed the handles or edges, maybe... but that would require loosing the shield, bashing, and then on the next round readying it again.

 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...

• Nov 21, 2003

• #7

Camarath said:

Hypersmurf would you mind proving that being used as an off-hand weapon would preclude a weapon from being used two-handed. As I see it "as an off-hand weapon" does not mean "with your off-hand".

Click to expand...

That sounds very much like my post in a thread with Caliban this week...

If you read my post above again, you'll see "It depends on how your DM interprets" and "Some would say".

I'm not claiming it to be my reading, nor is there any burden on me to "prove" something I've offered as a possible point of dispute!

-Hyp.

 

Camarath

Pale Master Tarrasque

• Nov 21, 2003

• #8

Hypersmurf said:

I'm not claiming it to be my reading, nor is there any burden on me to "prove" something I've offered as a possible point of dispute!

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

I was just wondering how one would could say basicly, if you use a weapon as an off-hand weapon you have to use it in your off-hand, when you can use some weapons as off-hand weapons even when they do not require the use of any of your hands (Monk's Unarmed Strike, Armor Spikes). I did not mean to imply a burden of proof or that this view was your view. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was just curious as to the rational for and the support behind this assertion.

 

Hypersmurf

Moderatarrrrh...

• Nov 21, 2003

• #9

Camarath said:

... when you can use some weapons as off-hand weapons even when they do not require the use of any of your hands (Monk's Unarmed Strike, Armor Spikes).

Click to expand...

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

-Hyp.

 

S

spunky_mutters

First Post

• Nov 21, 2003

• #10

Hypersmurf said:

"There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed."

-Hyp.

Click to expand...

You mean my monk striking unarmed with his primary hand can't wield a dagger in his off-hand?