Shield bashing.

[Lord Pendragon]

Imp. Shield Bash: Not only can you bash enemies into dangerous terrain or force them to provoke AoO, if you bash them back 5 ft then step back 5 ft at the end of your attack. Then the foe is 10 ft away and probably can't full attack.

This would be a great tactic if not for the TWF penalties. If making a normal full attack but using two different weapons constitutes two-weapon fighting, that means two more feats are needed to make the tactic feasible.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not arguing that this is wrong, though it sits wrong with me.

From the Main FAQ:
Do you have to actively wield a weapon of defending to
use its power? Or could you hold a longsword of defending
in your left hand, not use it to attack (so you are not
actually using the two weapons) and still wield a sword in
your right hand without penalties? Or is the defending
bonus considered part of the normal parrying that happens
in the background?
Using a weapon of defending works just like the Expertise
feat. (You have to use an attack or full attack action.) You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t
actually attack with the weapon.

I'd extrapolate from that that making a Full Attack Action that utilises more than one weapon held simultaneously - whether you actually claim the extra attack or not - incurs TWF penalties. Call it a coordination thing.

Now, it gets murkier when we start playing with the possibilities...

Assume I have +6/+1 iterative attacks and the Ambidexterity feat.

If I attack with the longsword in my right hand, drop it, quickdraw a shortsword in my right hand, and attack again, do I incur penalties?

If I attack with the longsword in my right hand, drop it, quickdraw a shortsword in my left hand, and attack again, do I incur penalties? Do I get full or half Str bonus to damage on the second attack?

If I attack with the longsword in my right hand, shift it into my left hand, and attack again, do I incur penalties? Do I get full or half Str bonus to damage on the second attack?

If I attack twice with the longsword in my right hand and then shift it to my left, can I make a third attack (taking TWF penalties on all three) for attacking with two weapons?

If I attack twice with the longsword in my right hand, drop it, and Quickdraw a shortsword with my left, can I make a third attack (taking TWF penalties on all three) for attacking with two weapons?

-Hyp.

 

[Sejs]

Actualy, Hyp I don't think that's quite right. If you get the AC benefit from the Expertise feat or a Defending Weapon you have to be attacking. The FAQ thing there is saying you can't use a defending weapon passively - you have to attack with it in order to gain the AC benefit. And if you attack with both weapons, you incur the full Two Weapon Fighting penalties, but would recieve the extra attack.


I dono, maybe make it so that if you're attacking with two weapons up to your normal allotment of attacks/round, but NOT trying to get the extra attack from TWF.. then just apply the off-hand penalties?

As for just holding a weapon in your off-hand.. not attacking with it, etc.. it's just there. You don't incur any penalties. To get penalties, you should get some benefit. So a fighter could hold a Longsword in main hand, and a potion in off.. no penalties to attack witht he longsword. He could hold a longsword in main hand, and a shortsword in off hand - and if he JUST attacks with the longsword... no penalties. But if he attacks with both weapons, then he's TWFing, with the normal TWF penalties (or maybe the just ambidex thing I suggested above if they're not trying to exceed their normal number of attacks)

 

[Hypersmurf]

The FAQ thing there is saying you can't use a defending weapon passively - you have to attack with it in order to gain the AC benefit.

No, it's not. It's saying you can't use a defending weapon passively - you have to take the penalties for attacking with two weapons even if you don't attack with it.

If you're taking the attack action with your longsword, you cannot benefit from the Defending property of your offhand shortsword.

If you're taking the full attack action with your longsword, you can benefit from the Defending property of your offhand shortsword... but it counts as attacking with two weapons, even if you don't make any attack rolls with the shortsword. Just the fact that you're using the shortsword - even though you're not availing yourself of the extra attack - is enough to incur TWF penalties.

Thus, if you attack with both weapons - even if you don't make use of the extra attack - you are "attacking with two weapons" and thus incur the penalties.

-Hyp.

 

[green slime]

Unfair isn't the word for this stupid smackdown.

Seriously. What an idea. Heroes riding around the countryside bashing enemies to a pulp, armed with two shields?!?!

The people who created these feats did not foresee the consequences of these feats. Which is really difficult to understand how they could not. The real shame is that they don't really require much tweaking to get back to a decent level (where noone will probably take them, that is a problem with player perception. Not many take them now, but they are still in combination overpowered.)

Seeing that this is so effective, ALL paladins should be riding round using just these feats. Sounds like a lot of fun, having the NPC blackguard smash into the party fighter, and deal 2000+ damage. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Would the players enjoy playing in such a world? I would not. YMMV.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Unfair isn't the word for this stupid smackdown.

Seriously. What an idea. Heroes riding around the countryside bashing enemies to a pulp, armed with two shields?!?!

The people who created these feats did not foresee the consequences of these feats. Which is really difficult to understand how they could not. The real shame is that they don't really require much tweaking to get back to a decent level (where noone will probably take them, that is a problem with player perception. Not many take them now, but they are still in combination overpowered.)

Seeing that this is so effective, ALL paladins should be riding round using just these feats. Sounds like a lot of fun, having the NPC blackguard smash into the party fighter, and deal 2000+ damage. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Would the players enjoy playing in such a world? I would not. YMMV.

Slime, I don't doubt that this happens in some games, but it's not what I'm trying to accomplish at all.

Simply put, I'd like my paladin to have the traditional sword and shield. Most of the time, he's going to do most of his attacking with the sword. But occasionally, he'd shove someone backward with his shield. It feels very real, or at the very least, cinematic.

Of course, in any round that he makes an attack with the shield, he wouldn't benefit from its AC bonus. But if the paladin has a +6/+1 progression, I'd like him to be able to use the sword with the +6 and the shield with the +1 occasionally, or vise-versa.

I don't think this is a smackdown or overpowered. At least not the way I'd like to use it. Unfortunately, it seems that the letter of the law doesn't allow for it. If you have two weapons, you're TWF, regardless of whether you get any extra attacks.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'd extrapolate from that that making a Full Attack Action that utilises more than one weapon held simultaneously - whether you actually claim the extra attack or not - incurs TWF penalties. Call it a coordination thing.

In another thread (Longbow and Force Ring) someone made mention of an official example, wherein a fighter wielding a spear shifts the spear to one hand, attacks a nearby foe with a spiked gauntlet, then two-hand's the spear again to be ready for AoOs at distance.

Would the example also incur TWF penalties? It would seem that it would have to...

 

[Victim]

From the Main FAQ:

You can’t
use the weapon like a shield; if you hold the weapon in your off
hand and claim an Armor Class bonus for it, you take all the
penalties for fighting with two weapons, even if you don’t
actually attack with the weapon.

-Hyp.

It seems to me that just holding the weapon imposes no penalty. If it did, then the "and claim an AC bonus" would be unnecessary. No off hand actions are used, and no bonus is derived from having a sword in hand. Therefore, I'd say that it's acceptable to run around and beat things to death by your shield (primary hand) while waving a sword about with your off hand, because, hey, paladins are supposed swing a sword around, right?

But using iterative attacks for off hand weapon attacks normally imposes 2 weapon penalties. That said, it's not exactly game breaking to ignore them, so talk to the DM.

 

[green slime]

Slime, I don't doubt that this happens in some games, but it's not what I'm trying to accomplish at all.

Simply put, I'd like my paladin to have the traditional sword and shield. Most of the time, he's going to do most of his attacking with the sword. But occasionally, he'd shove someone backward with his shield. It feels very real, or at the very least, cinematic.

Of course, in any round that he makes an attack with the shield, he wouldn't benefit from its AC bonus. But if the paladin has a +6/+1 progression, I'd like him to be able to use the sword with the +6 and the shield with the +1 occasionally, or vise-versa.

I don't think this is a smackdown or overpowered. At least not the way I'd like to use it. Unfortunately, it seems that the letter of the law doesn't allow for it. If you have two weapons, you're TWF, regardless of whether you get any extra attacks.

Sorry Lord Pendragon, I was not commenting on what you were trying to do. I was merely trying to point out that the combination of certain feats/abilities/spells/magic items which have been pointed out by others is ludricous in the extreme (IMNSHO), and I find it difficult to understand why a DM would allow all of these in his game, to the detriment of reason and logic. Not to say that Logic and Reason are all important in a fantasy campaign, but there are limits beyond which the will to suspend disbelief simply ceases and the entire becomes a caricature.

I find the thought that some adventurer would run around bearing two shields to be such a joke. What many players really fail to realise, is that in general the DM's job is to challenge all the players equally over the gaming sessions. It tends to lead to a more enjoyable game, we can all agree.

Creating an effective character is all and well, but going beyond that is just like entering a nuclear arms race. The DM still has to challenge your character, and it leads to more cheese... Which is fun if all the players get involved, and don't mind the cheese dealt out by the DM, but that isn't always the case.

Anyway, none of what I say was really relevant to what YOU originally posted. Sit down talk to the DM, look over the feats suggested here by many insightful posters (both powergaming, and ruleswise), examine what you want to be able to do, and reach an agreement. That way it'll be more fun for everyone involved.

 

[Darklone]

In another thread (Longbow and Force Ring) someone made mention of an official example, wherein a fighter wielding a spear shifts the spear to one hand, attacks a nearby foe with a spiked gauntlet, then two-hand's the spear again to be ready for AoOs at distance.

Would the example also incur TWF penalties? It would seem that it would have to...

IMHO yes. And I would ask the player for ME actions to "ready" the spear again.