Calling All Experts: Shield Bash and Dual Shields?

[Rel]

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.

mekloriii, this may be the single most laughable statement I've ever seen on the EN World Messageboards.

Thanks, man!

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

Ah, the old "you can't do it because there is no rule for it." What a great game that makes for.

Player1: I look down at the body of my vanquished foe and spit on his corpse.

DM: I'm sorry, you can't do that.

Player1: What? Why not?

DM: There's nothing about spitting in the core rules.

Player2: Unless you're a Digester!

DM: Yeah, unless you're a Digester.

Player3: Actually, that's an 'acid spray', not a spit.

Player2: Oh yeah.

Player1: That's kind of dumb.

DM: Sorry, but these are Universal Laws. You can look, but you can't spit.

Player1: Oh, all right. Well, I leave him there and go back to the town and have some lunch.

DM: Sorry, there's no rules for eating, either.

Player1: But...there are rules for starvation...rations are on the equipment list...doesn't that imply that I have to be able to eat?

DM:Well...there's some rules for drinking in the ENWorld Player's Journal...

Player1: Fine, I have a beer.

DM: Roll the dice to see if you're getting drunk.

J

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't really think that the two-shield-style is inherently munchkin. You sure can use some feats and things get rediculous fast, but I very much believe that it isn't necessarily so, and that you can build such a character that isn't overpowered.

I do think that it's silly. But that's my opinion. The character will have to deal with a lot of mocking (no matter how big his success. I remember that scene from the 13th Warrior, where the oriental guy wasn't used to the large swords the norse used and had it shortened, now resembling a curved sword. Everyone laughed. But then, he cut a log of wood cleanly in half with his new sword. It was impressive... and he was still the target of chests: "Hey, if you die, can I give that toy to my child sister?"). It probably is absolutely OK in a campaign that is not totally serious.

And I'm absolutely positive that that style is possible. Nothing keeps you from holding a shield in either hand. Noone keeps you from striking with both in the same round. After all, a shield takes up an "arm slot", and you have two of these (while you only have one "armor" slot. And even if you wear one armor over the other, there are still gaps which can be exploited.)

 

[melkoriii]

mekloriii, this may be the single most laughable statement I've ever seen on the EN World Messageboards.

Thanks, man!

Glad you found it funny.

Sorry to say that its the truth though.

The rules are there to act as gavity.

How do you resolve a 15' jump? Follow the rules.
How do you resolve a attack with a crossbow? Follow the rules.
How do you make a scroll? Follow the rules.

They are there to keep everything in order, ballenced and fair.

People seem to want to bend/ find loopwhole to things to get around these rules and I find it sad that poeple cant just play by the rules in a logical ballenced and fair way.

Poeple are always looking for that loopwhole that makes them unbeatable or give taht unfair advantage and think that its ok and not against the spirit of the game.


D&D rules are there to show you how that world works.
Some times it goes against what seems logical in the real world.

In the real world you could weild two shield and get AC bonus for both.

You cant in the D&D world. Why? Because that would be unballencing, exspecaly if you allow the DotF shield feats.

 

[melkoriii]

Ah, the old "you can't do it because there is no rule for it." What a great game that makes for.

Player1: I look down at the body of my vanquished foe and spit on his corpse.

DM: I'm sorry, you can't do that.

Player1: What? Why not?

DM: There's nothing about spitting in the core rules.

Player2: Unless you're a Digester!

DM: Yeah, unless you're a Digester.

Player3: Actually, that's an 'acid spray', not a spit.

Player2: Oh yeah.

Player1: That's kind of dumb.

DM: Sorry, but these are Universal Laws. You can look, but you can't spit.

Player1: Oh, all right. Well, I leave him there and go back to the town and have some lunch.

DM: Sorry, there's no rules for eating, either.

Player1: But...there are rules for starvation...rations are on the equipment list...doesn't that imply that I have to be able to eat?

DM:Well...there's some rules for drinking in the ENWorld Player's Journal...

Player1: Fine, I have a beer.

DM: Roll the dice to see if you're getting drunk.

J

No.

The old follow the rules as there are there to keep things balanced, fair and fun.


I will not explain to you when a game mechanic is needed. If you don’t know that, then you really should go play "pretend” with the other kids.

 

[chipmunck]

weighing in on the topic

From the original:

"You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon."
My question, of course, is can it be used as your primary weapon?

--- It says specific that it can be used as an off-handed weapon, why would they go to the effort of putting that in if they didn't care what hand you used it with?

---"An opponent can be bashed with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, the shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon"
So, if you use it with your offhand it would be, then concidered a martial bludgeoning weapon. (is how I read it)


---I realized something staring at this.... an opponant CAN be bashed...... , using it as an off-hand weapon.
---Try it this way: Using it as an off-hand weapon, an opponant can be bashed with a shield.

---Either the guys at WoTC are bad at American and didn't care how they used the American Language in their publications, or they do care, and makes the point that 'an opponant can be bashed with a shield, provided that it is used as an off-hand weapon.'

---(I just hope you don't go breaking down my poor american. I am not a publisher, and take much more time thinking my words and sentence structure when actually writing a book.)
I love going through DD books and finding those American Language usages when trying to figure out what they are saying to us.


I think a shield bash is only logical using your main hand. Especially since if I took the feat ambidexterity, I'd have no 'off-hand' with which to do a shield bash.

--You still have an 'off-hand', it just says (PHB pg 80) you 'ignore all penalties for using an offhand.' So you still got that off-hand.


I see many of you have invested much emotion in this conversation thread, so I want people to know i am adding an opinion and this is what I got out of reading the PHB.
I will go into reading the other book, which I do not currently have, so if any of you have the needed material from Defenders of the Faith, I would really appreciate it.
Maybe they make additional calls in that book that would make the PHB more clear for us to read.

Thanks for your time
Chipmunck

 

[Darklone]

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.

Actually, that's not really true... bastard swords or spears&shields were more common than the sword&shield combination. Fighting with a shield looks nice and easy but it's only really useful against archers. In melee combat, it's too easy to break the arm that holds a shield.

 

[drnuncheon]

I will not explain to you when a game mechanic is needed. If you don’t know that, then you really should go play "pretend” with the other kids.

And yet, somehow none of my campaigns have collapsed into rampant twinkery and foolishness.

I must be doing something right.

J

oh yeah: *plonk*

 

[RJSmalls]

Thanks

Thanks for the responses fellas. I think I got what I needed from the post, and maybe we can shut her down now before people start throwing things.

If anyone cares, I think this is the way I'll rule it:

- Shield bash may be delivered from either the primary or off-hand
- Normal two-weapon fighting rules apply
- Tower shields may not be used for bashing
- A shield used as a weapon must be enchanted as such for attack/damage rolls
- If a PC is unproficient with Martial weapons, then he must spend a feat to gain Martial Weap Prof (shield)


I haven't yet perused the DotF feats, so I can't really say what I'll do there. I agree with the comments above that a dual-wielding shield guy may be "funny", but if my PC wants to do that to increase his fun, I don't think I'm sacrificing game balance or any over-riding, mature themes. As someone mentioned, there's plenty of better ways to twink a character.

Thanks again for all your help!

p.s. drnuncheon, just visited Pittsburgh last weekend. It's the best city in the US in my opinion (and I've been all over). Absolutely beautiful, with extremely nice people.

 

[DiFier]

And yet, somehow none of my campaigns have collapsed into rampant twinkery and foolishness.

I must be doing something right.

J

oh yeah: *plonk*

True, none of your current campaigns have collapsed but I think that it is because of you quality players and skills as a DM. but . . .

*cough* teifling sorcerer casting darkness, centered on the demon, party in area of effect. 300 lb elven cook tying himself to the well and running around in circles yelling "I don't eat food that falls on the ground" while the bard and cleric duck he takes out the teifling and then the demon cuts the rope sending the fat elf careening into and through a peasant's house. *cough*



The current argument is weather a dual weilding sheilds is possible by the rules. The answer to that is that yes it is possible. it never says that you cannot use a shield in you primary hand but that a shield attack is treated as an off-hand attack. ambidexteriay and TWF then make it possible.

Wheather dual weilding sheilds is silly is beside the point. That is up to your DM. I wouldn't play a dual weilding charachter. is it taking advantage of a combination of feats that the WOTC people never saw. perhaps. but again that is the DM's call.

Darklone. I sorta agree with you. especially with the shield and spear concept. I am not a medieval historian and I've never participated in a medevial battle. plus I can't spell. An interisting note tho. I have friends In the SCA and friends who used to be in the SCA and they have told me that the sword and board (shield) method is the most popular method of fighting. I haven't heard of any SCA fighter using 2 shields.