Ranger question dealing with fighting style

[Numenorean]

What do you think is preferrable?

12th level ranger dual wielding +2 longsword and +3 shortsword (w/ weapon focus and improved crit for longsword), 18 STR = +4 dmg

or ....

12th level ranger dual wielding +2 longsword and +3 light steel shield (w/ weapon focus and improved crit for longsword, plus improved shield bash), 18 STR= +4 dmg, AND a campaign house rule where your "+" on a shield counts toward your ATK and DMG just as it would on a weapon.

Basically its a trade for some damage output for a nice 4 points of AC.

Thoughts?

 

[Jack Simth]

Any particular reason not to go with dual shortswords? Sure, you lose a point of average damage on the primary hand, but you switch your feats over and suddenly improved crit and weapon focus apply to both weapons; add Two-Weapon Defense and you get a small shield bonus to go with the damage despite using a weapon in both hands.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any particular reason not to go with dual shortswords? Sure, you lose a point of average damage on the primary hand, but you switch your feats over and suddenly improved crit and weapon focus apply to both weapons; add Two-Weapon Defense and you get a small shield bonus to go with the damage despite using a weapon in both hands.

Or take the Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat (CAdv) instead of Improved Shield Bash, and use two longswords.

-Hyp.

 

[Numenorean]

Thanks for the advice guys but I'm looking for feedback on the situation presented. We only play with the core books, and I'm not a fan of using a shortsword as the main weapon for my ranger character (I like longswords and bastard swords) ...

I'm trying to decide between the LS/SS dual wield, or the LS/Sh-shield bash style.

4 AC over a few points of damage (8 v. 7), or vice versa?

Thanks.

 

[farscapesg1]

Well, if you have a house rule that applies the bonus for the shield to both attack and damage, the sword and board option is the better. Yes you use an extra feat, but the +4 to AC is more than worth it.

 

[Numenorean]

Well, if you have a house rule that applies the bonus for the shield to both attack and damage, the sword and board option is the better. Yes you use an extra feat, but the +4 to AC is more than worth it.

Thats what I was thinking too. I wanted to toss it out there and see what people thought was the best of the two.

Sword and shield also appeals to me b/c its somewhat different than most rangers as per 3.5e, and I like variety and difference.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm trying to decide between the LS/SS dual wield, or the LS/Sh-shield bash style.

4 AC over a few points of damage (8 v. 7), or vice versa?

Have you considered a +2 bashing shield, rather than a +3 shield?

Damage goes up to 1d6. Depending on how your DM sees the interaction between the bashing ability and a spiked shield, it's potentially 1d8.

-Hyp.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Get two shields instead. Now you get magic weapons for 50% off (since a +2 shield costs 4150, a +2 weapon 8300, and you get weapon capability out of that shield).

 

[Numenorean]

Have you considered a +2 bashing shield, rather than a +3 shield?

Damage goes up to 1d6. Depending on how your DM sees the interaction between the bashing ability and a spiked shield, it's potentially 1d8.

-Hyp.

Hmmm ... Our campaign is pretty old-school in feel, I doubt such an item would exist in my DM's campaign

Interesting idea though. Which supplement book did that item come from? We play just the core books mostly.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Which supplement book did that item come from? We play just the core books mostly.

Spiked shield - PHB.
Bashing ability - DMG.

It's about as core as it gets

-Hyp.