TWF & Shield Bash

[Hypersmurf]

.....that's ingenious, lol. *cough*

This might become a standard build method for me in the future, lol.

I personally read the statement in the description of shields as restrictive.

"Shield Bash Attacks: You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table X: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash."

To me, this states that a shield used to attack is used as an off-hand weapon, taking a -4 to attack rolls and adding half Str bonus to damage, whether you're right- or left-handed, whether you're using one or two weapons, etc. Its inclusion in the weapons table isn't to say "The heavy shield is a one-handed weapon like any other one-handed weapon"; it's so that when the entry under the shield says "See the Weapons table", there's something there. But unless you're bashing an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon, the damage (etc) listed on the table is inapplicable.

Iku Rex takes the opposite position - that the heavy shield is a one-handed weapon, and that it can be used like any other one-handed weapon (a longsword, say)... and that the entry under Shield Bash Attacks is permissive, rather than restrictive - it says you can use it as an off-hand weapon, but doesn't say you can't use it as a primary weapon.

For what it's worth, the Main FAQ agrees with him:
Can a character make a shield bash attack using the
shield as a primary weapon or can it be used only as an offhand
weapon?

While the rules describe a shield bash as an off-hand
weapon, that’s simply an assumption (that your primary hand is
holding a weapon). There’s nothing stopping you from
declaring your shield bash as your primary weapon. Of course,
that means that any attack you make with your other hand
becomes a secondary weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Kularian]

Either way, (I just looked up Oversized TWF,) that would eliminate the penalties I'd be looking at, anyway. So, in regard to the Tempest, when employing the Large Shield as a weapon, the penalties would become 0/0, am I correct? Assuming I have enough levels in Tempest to acheive the Ambidexterity ability, anyway.

Fair enough to the enhancements, I didn't think so anyway,

EDIT: Was looking for the Extreme Shield (just for fun), when I stumbled across the Dwarven Buckler-Axe. It seems like a spiked shield can be enchanted as both a defensive and offensive option, as quote from CW:

Like a spiked shield, a buckler-axe can be enhanced as a weapon, as a shield, or both, but such enhancements must be paid for and applied separately.

So...not sure how to figure costs, then.

As for whether or not the Bashing Enhancement and the Shield Spikes stack, I'm not sure. But here are some quotes from the SRD for reference, hehe.

When added to your shield, these spikes turn it into a martial piercing weapon that increases the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you.

A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger

It seems like it would, but I'm not entirely certain...


....hehe. Just had an amusing thought of putting Throwing and Returning on a shield for a Captain America effect.

 

[Iku Rex]

As for whether or not the Bashing Enhancement and the Shield Spikes stack, I'm not sure.

The description of the magical bashing property for shields
says it can be added only to light or heavy shields. Does this
exclude shields with shield spikes? That is, can you have a
+2 spiked light shield of bashing?
You can add the bashing property to a spiked shield. If you
do, the damage dealt by the shield bash increases from normal
by 3 steps (2 for the bashing property and 1 for the shield
spikes), and the weapon becomes a martial piercing weapon.
The example +1 spiked light shield of bashing, if made for a
Medium character, would deal 1d8 points of piercing damage
from the bash. (Normally a light shield bash deals 1d3 points of
damage, but the spikes improve that to 1d4 and the bashing
enhancement increases that to 1d8.)

(I'm not 100% sure if I agree with this ruling.)

Edit:

....hehe. Just had an amusing thought of putting Throwing and Returning on a shield for a Captain America effect.

The PHBII actually has a Shield Sling feat for this sort of thing, along with several other shield specialist feats. (Though throwing and returning is still a good idea, as the shield won't come back to you.)

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Yea, I've been wanting to do this for a while. I don't play enough D&D to try out all the character options I'd like to explore.

--fje

 

[Hypersmurf]

The PHBII actually has a Shield Sling feat for this sort of thing, along with several other shield specialist feats. (Though throwing and returning is still a good idea, as the shield won't come back to you.)

If the Shield Sling feat removes the -4 penalty for throwing a melee weapon with no range increment, then don't waste the +1 MPM on Throwing... just get Returning!

-Hyp.

 

[Kularian]

Hehehe, we'll see about Captain America,

But, while looking through the PHB II, I stumbled across the Agile Shield Fighter Feat, which does, and I quote (I like quoting, hehe):

Benefit: When making a shield bash and armed strike attack as part of a full attack action, you take a -2 penalty on each attack. These penalties replace the normal ones you incur for fighting with two weapons.

So...by RAW, with this feat and then the TWF feat, I'd be at 0/0 for penalties right away, yes? To be honest that seems a little...unfair, considering with the quoted FAQ that a Spiked Bashing Large Shield can do 1d10 (or 2d6, depending on what table is used.) All the benefits of a shield and a bastard sword? Hm... :\

I'm thinking WoTC didn't expect something like this.

 

[Iku Rex]

If the Shield Sling feat removes the -4 penalty for throwing a melee weapon with no range increment, then don't waste the +1 MPM on Throwing... just get Returning!

There's a potential (small) problem in that returning can only be placed on "a weapon that can be thrown". Now technically any weapon "can" be thrown, but I suspect that's not what they meant. Throwing removes that problem, as a throwing weapon "can be thrown by a wielder proficient in its normal use".

 

[FireLance]

So...by RAW, with this feat and then the TWF feat, I'd be at 0/0 for penalties right away, yes? To be honest that seems a little...unfair, considering with the quoted FAQ that a Spiked Bashing Large Shield can do 1d10 (or 2d6, depending on what table is used.) All the benefits of a shield and a bastard sword? Hm... :\

I'm thinking WoTC didn't expect something like this.

I'd consider the TWF advantage to be part of the "normal" penalties for fighting with two weapons, so you'd still be at -2/-2. I see this feat as just making the heavy shield bash/weapon attack combination more viable.

In addition, by a strict interpretation of what you've written, you will still take the normal penalties if you decide to make iterative attacks with the weapon or the shield.

 

[Kularian]

In addition, by a strict interpretation of what you've written, you will still take the normal penalties if you decide to make iterative attacks with the weapon or the shield.

Hmmm, perhaps. It does make mention of using the "shield bash and armed strike" as part of a full attack action, rather than a standard attack action. A very debatable point, either way. Or so it seems to me,

Shield Sling: You can wield your light shield or heavy shield as a thrown weapon with a range increment of 20 feet.

That makes it seem quite 'throwable' to me, hehe. You can also throw the shield to do a trip attack, but I love the after-mention of the buckler:

"You can throw a buckler, but it does no damage, and you cannot use it to trip an opponent."

 

[Hypersmurf]

There's a potential (small) problem in that returning can only be placed on "a weapon that can be thrown". Now technically any weapon "can" be thrown...

It even says so in the rules.

It is possible to throw a weapon that isn’t designed to be thrown (that is, a melee weapon that doesn’t have a numeric entry in the Range Increment column on Table: Weapons), but a character who does so takes a –4 penalty on the attack roll.

Returning doesn't say "a weapon designed to be thrown" or "a weapon that has a numeric entry in the Range Increment column"; it says "a weapon that can be thrown", and the rules say it's possible to throw a weapon that isn't designed to be thrown... making them all 'weapons that can be thrown'.

-Hyp.