Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DiFier" data-source="post: 877259" data-attributes="member: 2345">Here's my take on thisA normal fighter (long sword and large shield) would hold the sword in his primary hand and the shield in his off hand.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; The designers probablly just assumed that no-one would do something silly like weild 2 shields.&nbsp; so if you read into it too much and assume that they were assuming that.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; why? cause he didn't exist.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; it worked well.&nbsp; you could attack with your sword and you could block his attacks with you shield.&nbsp; You could even puch back you oponent or bash him with your shield if the oportunity presented itself.&nbsp;&nbsp; The style of fighting with 2 swords never really caught on and the method of using 2 shields never occured to anyone.&nbsp; Now I know that magic changes everything.&nbsp; but come on now.&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DiFier, post: 877259, member: 2345"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification