-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Can I use two shields at the same time?
- Thread starter Rel
- Start date
Re: Re: Can I use two shields at the same time?
A shield is a light martial bludgeoning weapon (when used to bash). It follows the rules for light martial bludgeoning weapons unless othwerwise noted.
And no, just becasue you can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon, does not mean that all attacks with a shield has to be off-hand attacks.
"You can hit an opponent with a short sword, using it as an off-hand weapon". True or false?dcollins said:
A shield is a light martial bludgeoning weapon (when used to bash). It follows the rules for light martial bludgeoning weapons unless othwerwise noted.
And no, just becasue you can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon, does not mean that all attacks with a shield has to be off-hand attacks.
The Lone Corndog
First Post
Bumpity bump...
As the DM in question, I'm kinda curious what the consensus opinion (if any) is on the issue of whether or not having a large shield in one hand and a small shield in the other would leave one hand "free" enough to cast spells.
Rel's theory seems to be that if you are able to hold a torch (or something other than a weapon) in the hand with the small shield, then that hand isn't totally occupied with holding the shield and is therefore "free" enough to satisfy the somatic component part of spellcasting.
This seems like a fairly shaky premise to me, so what sayeth the teeming masses?
PS - forgot to say: "Rel 's a powergamer, Rel 's a powergamer!! (Sorry pal, you did ask for it
)
As the DM in question, I'm kinda curious what the consensus opinion (if any) is on the issue of whether or not having a large shield in one hand and a small shield in the other would leave one hand "free" enough to cast spells.
Rel's theory seems to be that if you are able to hold a torch (or something other than a weapon) in the hand with the small shield, then that hand isn't totally occupied with holding the shield and is therefore "free" enough to satisfy the somatic component part of spellcasting.
This seems like a fairly shaky premise to me, so what sayeth the teeming masses?
PS - forgot to say: "Rel 's a powergamer, Rel 's a powergamer!! (Sorry pal, you did ask for it
)
Last edited:
Magus Coeruleus
Explorer
IMC, buckler yes, but small shield no. One of the main reason (other than economic) for using bucklers.
reapersaurus
Explorer
I'm curious - what's his character?
Why is he casting spells in melee instead of bashing people?
Why is he casting spells in melee instead of bashing people?
The Lone Corndog
First Post
reapersaurus said:I'm curious - what's his character?
Why is he casting spells in melee instead of bashing people?
'Cause he's the party cleric. I imagine the rest of the party might want some healing spells during combat.
OK, technically, he won't be the party cleric at first, but after taking a level of ranger, then he'll be the party cleric. Of course at the start of the campaign, one of the other players will run a cleric...for one level before switching over to paladin. Maybe. If I haven't screwed his planned character progression. (See Speak with Stone's thread re: Cleric/Paladin turning stack?)
So maybe they won't have a cleric at first level...won't that be interesting.
that's it
I'm using 2 tower shields and wearing a helm with a large, flat, metal surface on taop. In this manner, I can provide full cover from from all directions and use my helm at the top. My character's name? Oscar the grouch.
By the way, I likw the character idea. It's kind of goofy but then again, so am I.
I'm using 2 tower shields and wearing a helm with a large, flat, metal surface on taop. In this manner, I can provide full cover from from all directions and use my helm at the top. My character's name? Oscar the grouch.
By the way, I likw the character idea. It's kind of goofy but then again, so am I.
Re: Bumpity bump...
The DnD FAQ/Sage Advice says (mostly for balance reasons, I think) that you can't cast somatic components if one hand is full and there's a buckler on your other arm.
Hey, I didn't make the ruling.
The Lone Corndog said:As the DM in question, I'm kinda curious what the consensus opinion (if any) is on the issue of whether or not having a large shield in one hand and a small shield in the other would leave one hand "free" enough to cast spells.
Rel's theory seems to be that if you are able to hold a torch (or something other than a weapon) in the hand with the small shield, then that hand isn't totally occupied with holding the shield and is therefore "free" enough to satisfy the somatic component part of spellcasting.
This seems like a fairly shaky premise to me, so what sayeth the teeming masses?
PS - forgot to say: "Rel 's a powergamer, Rel 's a powergamer!! (Sorry pal, you did ask for it
The DnD FAQ/Sage Advice says (mostly for balance reasons, I think) that you can't cast somatic components if one hand is full and there's a buckler on your other arm.
Hey, I didn't make the ruling.
Similar Threads
