Calling All Experts: Shield Bash and Dual Shields?

[Iku Rex]

By the rules you can not make a primary attack with a shield bash.

The you can only make a shield bash as an off-hand weapon.

Untrue. There is no such rule. Read it again.

 

[melkoriii]

Untrue. There is no such rule. Read it again.

From SRD

Shield Bash Attacks: An opponent can be bashed with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. A Medium-size character deals 1d4 points of damage (X2 crit) with a large shield or 1d3 (X2 crit) with a small one. (The tower shield cannot be used to perform the bash action.) A Small character deals 1d3 points of damage (X2 crit) with a large shield or 1d2 (X2 crit) with a small one. Used this way, the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For purposes of attack penalties, treat a shield as a light weapon. If the shield is used as a weapon, lose its AC bonus until the character's next action (usually until the next round).

Hmmm looks to me like it says "as a off-hand weapon."

 

[Iku Rex]

Hmmm looks to me like it says "as a off-hand weapon."

It sure does. What's your point?

It also says that a shield used to perform a shield bash is a martial bludgeoning weapon. As there is no special rule saying that you can't make your primary attack with this particular martial bludgeoning weapon, you can. The presence of a rule confirming that a shield bash can be used as an off-hand weapon does not prove that it can't be used as a primary weapon.

"You can strike an opponent with a longsword, using it as an off-hand weapon." True or false?

If you agree that this is "true", have I just proven that you can't make your primary attack with a longsword?

 

[DiFier]

Here's my take on this

A normal fighter (long sword and large shield) would hold the sword in his primary hand and the shield in his off hand. if he wanted to attack with the shield he would be at the normal penalties for attacking with a light weapon in his off hand and would do 1d4 damage (1d6 w/ spikes).

The designers probablly just assumed that no-one would do something silly like weild 2 shields. so if you read into it too much and assume that they were assuming that. then you can get that you can infact weild 2 shields.

of course you know what they say about assumptions they make an @ss out of u and me.

No one has heard the legend of Sir Oeta, one of the knights of the round table, who duel weilded a pair of shields and rose to greatness in the search for the holy grail. why? cause he didn't exist. no only that no one ever dual weilded shields (unless they were trying to hide from a rain of arrows) to inspirre the legend of Sir Oeta.

The sword and shield method of fightting lasted a long time. it worked well. you could attack with your sword and you could block his attacks with you shield. You could even puch back you oponent or bash him with your shield if the oportunity presented itself. The style of fighting with 2 swords never really caught on and the method of using 2 shields never occured to anyone.

Now I know that magic changes everything. but come on now.

I also don't think that the people at WOTC took into account all the d20 publishers who came out with shield feats so that now you can basically do more points of dammage weilding a big flat board then you can with a pointy stick.

 

[Rel]

This doesn't seem like a complex debate for me. Historical context has little bearing on it because the typical D&D world has about as much to do with history as a Mack Truck does to a bicycle.

The questions are these: Is shield bashing a valid form of attack? The rules are very clear that it is.

If shield bashing is a valid form of attack with your OFF hand, do you suppose that you would be able to accomplish it with primary hand?

If you are using a valid attack form in your primary hand, is it reasonable that you could use a shield for defense in your off hand?

Can you make an off hand attack with a shield instead of using it for defense? We're back to the rules being very clear on this.


Issues about it being "silly" are entirely campaign specific. And I would contend that it is no more silly than a Monkey Gripped Guissarme.

 

[melkoriii]

It sure does. What's your point?

It also says that a shield used to perform a shield bash is a martial bludgeoning weapon. As there is no special rule saying that you can't make your primary attack with this particular martial bludgeoning weapon, you can. The presence of a rule confirming that a shield bash can be used as an off-hand weapon does not prove that it can't be used as a primary weapon.

"You can strike an opponent with a longsword, using it as an off-hand weapon." True or false?

If you agree that this is "true", have I just proven that you can't make your primary attack with a longsword?

A shield can ONLY be used as a off-hand weapon.
A Longsword can be used as a off-hand AND a Primary weapon.

If you make a shield bash attack as your only attack, it is still an off-hand attack.

The only reason this "combo" came about is bebause of the DotF feats that made a Sword and Shield fighter have more flavor were thought of in a min/max/loop whole way. This kind of thinking is what ruins games IMO.

A Shield Bash was not ment to be used as a sole attack form and if you allow it to be it becomes ungoddy over powered and munchkin.

 

[melkoriii]

The questions are these: Is shield bashing a valid form of attack? The rules are very clear that it is.

Yes.

If shield bashing is a valid form of attack with your OFF hand, do you suppose that you would be able to accomplish it with primary hand?

No.

If you are using a valid attack form in your primary hand, is it reasonable that you could use a shield for defense in your off hand?

No.
Shields are not made or trained to be used in your Primary hand.

Can you make an off hand attack with a shield instead of using it for defense? We're back to the rules being very clear on this.

Yes.
But this does not pretain to useing a shield in your Primary hand as shields can only be used in your off-hand.

 

[drnuncheon]

Shields are not made or trained to be used in your Primary hand.

But this does not pretain to useing a shield in your Primary hand as shields can only be used in your off-hand.

I take exception with these answers in specific.

Left-handed people can and do use shields - therefore, we know that shields can be made for the right hand, and that people can be trained to use them with their right hand.

There is also nothing in the rules that says that a right-handed character cannot put a shield on his right arm. There is no invisible magical force on a normal shield preventing it from being donned this way.

Now, as for training, you are right - when you undergo shield training, you are trained to use it with your off hand. And the SRD says "An opponent can be bashed with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."

However, that does not necessarily mean that a shield can only be used in your off hand! It only means that however you use it, you take the penalties for using it as an off-hand weapon - logical, since even if you put it on your primary hand, you haven't been trained to use it on that side.

J

 

[melkoriii]

There is also nothing in the rules that says that a right-handed character cannot put a shield on his right arm. There is no invisible magical force on a normal shield preventing it from being donned this way.


However, that does not necessarily mean that a shield can only be used in your off hand! It only means that however you use it, you take the penalties for using it as an off-hand weapon - logical, since even if you put it on your primary hand, you haven't been trained to use it on that side.

J

There is also no magical force that pervents you from wearing Leather armor and Chainmail at the same time. We know that this would befinatly add to AC but in D&D you get no added AC. Infact you cant wear two types of armor at the same time.

So yes in D&D there are magical forces that prevent you form doing some things. They are called rules that keep the game ballenced.

People forget that the rules are not like US law. They are not ment to be interpited one way here and another there. They are like Universal laws (Gravity, chemistry, physics) and are one way and one way only all the time.

 

[Rel]

Now, as for training, you are right - when you undergo shield training, you are trained to use it with your off hand. And the SRD says "An opponent can be bashed with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."

However, that does not necessarily mean that a shield can only be used in your off hand! It only means that however you use it, you take the penalties for using it as an off-hand weapon - logical, since even if you put it on your primary hand, you haven't been trained to use it on that side.

J

I even addressed this in the backstory of my afforementioned character. He learned to fight from a man who was part of a mercenary army. While on campaign, his mentor was grievously wounded and his comerades managed to save his life, but not his weapon arm. He learned, through necessity, to use his shield as a primary means of attack and passed that knowledge on to my character.

The DM had already ok'd the character concept but he liked my explanation of why I fought the way I did.

I'll just say one last time that I believe that the issue of whether wielding two shields is "silly" is campaign specific. There are lots of character concepts that I would disallow for being too "silly" before I'd ban the double-shield fighter.

As to the matter of it being "munchkin", I disagree. There are lots of weapons and combinations of weapons that are superior in the average "smackdown". I can't speak to the balance of every 3rd party publisher out there. But in my opinion the stuff in DotF and S&F serves to make shield bashing a viable attack form, not a superior one.