adamantine shields

[Iku Rex]

You asked Hyp, but I'll chime in here: Shield bashing is a superior TWF Style if you allow it to be used with just one feat for extra AC goodness and additional attacks.?

I don't believe you. Show me the numbers.

The only balancing (AND realistic) factor in here is the "Shieldbashes are always offhand attacks" sentence.?

I meant "reasonable" in an in-game sense. But since you find it to be realistic that's covered. Exactly why is it realistic?

Fred the Fighter straps the shield to his primary hand, braces it with his off-hand, and slams it into his opponent with his full strength and body weight behind the blow. Why doesn't he deal more damage than "normal"?

(And of course, there is no "shieldbashes are always offhand attacks" sentence in the rules.)

 

[Darklone]

For realism: Fight with sword and shield and try to hit your opponent with the shield You'll see.

Numbers: Shield Bash is one feat, TWD is another, similar feat.
Shield Bash TWF is superior because:
- you'll soon have a higher AC bonus with the shield than with the TWD feat (magic enhancements, materials, other stuff).
- The shield with enhancement Bashing (or spikes or whatever) is damagewise the best available offhand weapon. IIRC.

Soo, know any better TWF style (except the silly twohanded weapon + armour spikes combo)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

What makes you think an attack with a shield isn't always a shield bash?

If an attack with a shield is always a shield bash, then it is always treated as an off-hand weapon.

This is a rule for shield bashing. It states under the heading "Shield Bash Attacks" that is is used "as an off-hand weapon".

1) A scimitar can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand.
2) You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon.

Are these two sentences both true? If yes, does 2) prove that you can't slash an opponent with a scimitar wielded in your primary hand?

They're both true, but 2 is a general rule, not a specific restriction. Note that the description for scimitar does not state "A scimitar may be used to attack an opponent, using it as an off-hand weapon". It simply inherits the general rule for a one-handed weapon.

The shield, on the other hand, has a specific section stating how a shield bash works - namely, that it is used as an off-hand weapon.

Not true - the 3.0 rules also specify that the shield is a martial weapon when used to bash.

That's right. And it can be used to bash... using it as an off-hand weapon. So when you use it as an off-hand weapon, it is considered a martial weapon. If you're not using it as an off-hand weapon, you're not bashing, and therefore it is not treated as a martial weapon.

Let me ask you this Hypersmurf: Do you think it's reasonable that a shield is always an off-hand weapon?

Yup.

Because your argument, IMO, rests heavily on the intent of the writer. I think the shield write-up says what it does because it didn't occur to the writer that anyone might want to wield a shield in their primary hand. Had he wanted the rules to work as you say, he would have spelled it out explicitly.

He did. He said you can bash with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. How much more explicit do you want it?

-Hyp.

 

[Iku Rex]

For realism: Fight with sword and shield and try to hit your opponent with the shield You'll see.

What do you mean?

I can tell you with certainty that I'll be able to shield bash someone with more accuracy and power wearing the shield on my primary hand.

Numbers: Shield Bash is one feat, TWD is another, similar feat.<snip>

The numbers seem to be missing.

 

[Iku Rex]

If an attack with a shield is always a shield bash, then it is always treated as an off-hand weapon.

This is a rule for shield bashing. It states under the heading "Shield Bash Attacks" that is is used "as an off-hand weapon"..

No, it says that you can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Which does not prove that you cannot bash an opponent with a shield, using it as a primary weapon. The logic involved is not that difficult to grasp.

They're both true, but 2 is a general rule, not a specific restriction. .

Ok.

"You can slash an opponent with a scimitar, using it as an off-hand weapon."
"You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."

The first sentence is a general rule, and does not prohibit you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. The second sentence is a specific restriction which EXPLICITLY prohibits you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. And this is all regardless of the writers intent - thus the word "explicit" ("fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied").

(How am I supposed to comment on this without the "rolleyes" smiley. <sigh>)

The shield, on the other hand, has a specific section stating how a shield bash works - namely, that it is used as an off-hand weapon..

I think I get it now.

The reason shields have to be used as off-hand weapons is that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. If shields, like scimitars, did not have to be used as off-hand weapons, the sentence proving that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons would not prove that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons.

Bonus points if you can spot the fallacy.

Let me ask you this Hypersmurf: Do you think it's reasonable that a shield is always an off-hand weapon? .

Yup.

So, in your opinion most people can slam a shield as hard and as accurately into an opponent with their right hand as with their left hand. Gotcha.

He did. He said you can bash with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. How much more explicit do you want it?

OTTOMH: "You can bash with a shield. When a shield is used to bash it is always considered an off-hand weapon."

 

[Darklone]

What do you mean?

I can tell you with certainty that I'll be able to shield bash someone with more accuracy and power wearing the shield on my primary hand.

Yet it's no comparison to using a weapon in this hand.

Sure, they could have simply lowered the damage of shields (good idea IMHO), said you can only apply half strength bonus to damage (they somehow did) and applied a penalty to hit for improvised weapons (or something like that)...

The numbers seem to be missing.

Numbers:
TWD gives +1 shield bonus, +2 when fighting defensively. Cost: 1 feat.
Shield Bash gives at least a +1 shield bonus, possibly much more depending on size and enhancement bonus of the shield (ok, this all costs money plus 1 feat). Now get a Bashing heavy shield (perhaps add spikes) and for a +1 special ability, you'll have a +1 shield and a +1 weapon at once with 1d8+1 damage and AC +3. For the same price as a +1 longsword. If the shield wouldn't be an offhand weapon, there would be no reason at all not to choose a heavy shield as the main weapon in your TWF routines and a light weapon as offhand weapon.

Bashing: A shield with this special ability is designed to perform a shield bash. A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger (a Medium light shield thus deals 1d6 points of damage and a Medium heavy shield deals 1d8 points of damage). The shield acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash. (Only light and heavy shields can have this ability.)
Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, bull’s strength; Price +1 bonus.

My point: If you go the TWF route with shield bashing, you can enhance your stuff as you level up, TWD will not become better... unless you spend 2 more feats for the CW upgrades. And if there's anything a TWF fighter does not have in abundance, it's feats.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The first sentence is a general rule, and does not prohibit you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons.

Or rather, the first sentence is something that is derived from the general rule, given that there is no other information in the text of the scimitar.

The second sentence is a specific restriction which EXPLICITLY prohibits you from inheriting the general rule for one-handed weapons. And this is all regardless of the writers intent - thus the word "explicit" ("fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied").

It implicitly prohibits

The reason shields have to be used as off-hand weapons is that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons. If shields, like scimitars, did not have to be used as off-hand weapons, the sentence proving that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons would not prove that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons.

If shields did not have to be used as off-hand weapons, the sentence proving that shields have to be used as off-hand weapons would not be present in the rules.

So, in your opinion most people can slam a shield as hard and as accurately into an opponent with their right hand as with their left hand.

As written? Absolutely.

OTTOMH: "You can bash with a shield. When a shield is used to bash it is always considered an off-hand weapon."

Which is pretty damned close to what they wrote.

You can bash with a shield...
"Wait - how?"
... using it as an off-hand weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Iku Rex]

Yet it's no comparison to using a weapon in this hand..

And bashing with a shield in your off-hand is?

<snip>If the shield wouldn't be an offhand weapon, there would be no reason at all not to choose a heavy shield as the main weapon in your TWF routines and a light weapon as offhand weapon.

You post seem to be intended to prove that shield bashing with improved shield bash and a bashing shield as your primary weapon is superior to two-weapon fighting with improved two-weapon defense. But that's not really relevant, is it? The question is if shield bashing is the superior style - period.

Compare "short sword and a heavy bashing shield" vs. "light shield and longsword".

The former will yield a slightly better AC. Using a shield in your primary hand makes it harder to change (or drop) your main weapon, and you'll have to carry more weight.

The latter will give you a slightly better threat range on your primary weapon. Enhancing your primary weapon is a little cheaper. You're more likely to find longswords in random treasure.

All in all I'd say this is balanced.

The only reason it's even close is the bashing quality, which to me signifies that the bashing quality is "borderline", not the styles that benefit from it.

If you allow stacking of "spiked" + "bashing" it gets uglier, but even if that wasn't technically illegal, the problem would lie with the 2d6 damage one-handed weapon, not the style.

(Third option: Improved buckler defense, short sword, longsword. -1 penalty on attack rolls, no need for bashing quality. Fourth option: Animated shield - slightly more costly, but no need for bashing quality.)

 

[Iku Rex]

.

So, in your opinion most people can slam a shield as hard and as accurately into an opponent with their right hand as with their left hand.

As written? Absolutely.

"As written"?!

Seriously. Where is the "rolleys" smiley? I'm going nuts here.

Since your entire "argument" seems to boil down to repeating yourself over and over and denying even the most obvious facts, I see no point in continuing this.