Weapon + Shield to 2H Weapon?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Exactly my point - they don't both apply. But, apparently I wasn't clear about 'they.' In this case, I mean to say that you can't simply drop an equipped shield, just like you can't simply pick up a shield and call it equipped. Allowing dropping a shield that is equipped as a free action is like allowing dropping something out of your backpack as a free action (without the minor to retrieve it first).

Well, the thing is its simply not necessary for the game to impose a standard action as the cost of dropping your shield. In fact they say it costs a standard action to "stow your shield" which is actually doing the PC a favor since otherwise it would cost 2 minor actions (drop and put in backpack) which is a higher cost. If you just want to dump the shield though, its a minor action.

Think of it this way. The straps you put your arm through on a shield are not tight. They are just loops of material and then you grip the handle. Let go of the handle and the shield will slide right off easily (minor action). Putting it on is harder, you have to get things lined up so your hand goes through the loops, grab the handle and bring the shield into position (standard action). In game mechanics terms that standard action is what stops players from gaming their shields.

 

[DanmarLOK]

Since we're offering opinions, as the DM, I'd certainly allow a player to drop a shield to the ground as a free action. The standard action to stow or equip/unstow a shield I would rate primarily as a way to prevent cheese.

I'd also offer as an opinion that it seems it's not so much the 'equip' portion that costs the standard as it is the detaching the shield from whatever you're using to keep from falling off your person as you're moving in an active manner whether it's a snap hook that grabs the handle or straps that tie it on. This would take time to undo and typically require a bit of contortion on your part as generally the shields are carried on the back out of the way. That I can see taking a standard action to deploy.

Certainly not all shields have a strap, just a handle. I fail to see how it would take a standard action to 'equip' a shield you've just picked up from the ground, you'd presumably pick it up by the handle what more do you have to do with it at that point?

I think the safest thing to do is say "It's for balance reasons to avoid the character from dropping his shield at his feet (free), swinging with two hands (damage bonus), picking up the shield (minor), 'equipping it' (free, minor, move) to gain the AC boost while the other creatures take their turns. Later rinse repeat.

The only way to stop that (other than the DM going "Oh really, that's what you're doing in the middle of a fight. Really. Going to ask for the bungee cord strap next?") is by making it require a standard action to 'equip' a shield, even one you're already holding in your hands. That's the only way to elminate a RAW cheesiness that's a directly a result of the combat abstraction of "I take my turn, you take your turn." that the DnD system uses.

FWIW, I'd be more inclined to eliminate a player that tried to take advantage of such a thing than make it a standard action to equip a shield his character was holding. But I can see, understand and appreciate the developer's need and desire to eliminate loopholes that some percentage of the players might take advantage of especially with DM's that are primarily RAW rather than RAI either by personality or inexperience or for whatever reason.

 

[Mesh Hong]

Since we're offering opinions, as the DM, I'd certainly allow a player to drop a shield to the ground as a free action. The standard action to stow or equip/unstow a shield I would rate primarily as a way to prevent cheese.

I completely agree.

In fact I haddn't realised it was supposed to be a standard action to stow a shield. I have been running it as a minor action, with no game breaking results.

Of course, like you say, this falls into the general observation catergory of exploitation. Its only a problem if someone decides to get clever and use it to their advantage, at which point you either tell them not to do it or tell them that it'll now cost them a standard action.

 

[sfedi]

Then why rule it in a way that you are not comfortable on keeping?

 

[Mistwell]

Dropping stuff is a free action. Lets not get all wiggy with the term "equip".

Besides, how else are evil DMs going to steal your stuff mid-battle unless they let you drop stuff with ease?

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I have yet to have this happen in my game...

I have had the "strobe light" wizard, though - minor to cast light, standard to attack, free to dismiss light, though I guess I should be glad he didn't then use a move to stealth.

I must admit I found it a bit annoying, but it wasn't such a big issue that I banned it - many of the goblins they were fighting had torches, and I see it being even less of an issue as they go up levels as monsters tend to have better vision than the party. Besides, not often I run encounters where light is an issue, as its kind of a pain keeping track of the light sources on top of everything else.

 

[Infiniti2000]

As a bow ranger, I can fire my bow (std), stow it (minor), and draw a longsword (minor) for OA's. Next round, I stow the longsword (minor), draw the bow (minor), and use the bow (std). Now, it helps that I have quick draw so that I can mix in a quarry now and then, but we don't have a second melee character so sometimes I have to get my dex 20 str 14 elf ranger into the fray (thus why I'm concerned about taking OA's, which otherwise suck with unarmed).

Is this cheesy in the same way that an exploit allowing the 2H sword and shield is?

 

[Turtlejay]

lol@strobe light wizard.

Looking at this not from a 'what does stow mean' or a 'historical origins of the shield' but from a practical point of view, this whole discussion is silly.

We are playing a game. This game has rules in place to balance certain choices made by players. One of these choices is whether a melee character uses two one handed weapons, one two handed weapon, one one handed weapon, or one one handed weapon and a shield. I don't see a problem round-to-round switching that choice, but using mental gymnastics to reap the benefits of more than one of these choices is trying to break the rules. You are trying to be a cheater. Cheater.

This is just like people using 'exploits' in games. Sure, it may not trigger as against the rules, but it it obviously something that invalidates the encounter, and gives that character an unfair advantage. It is silly to even try to do this when there are so many legitimate ways to make powerful characters that leave your party with their fingers stuck in their noses while you do everything by yourself.

And, as Draco said, it is quibbling about *1* point of damage in the case of versatile weapons. Not worth it.

Jay

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a bow ranger, I can fire my bow (std), stow it (minor), and draw a longsword (minor) for OA's. Next round, I stow the longsword (minor), draw the bow (minor), and use the bow (std). Now, it helps that I have quick draw so that I can mix in a quarry now and then, but we don't have a second melee character so sometimes I have to get my dex 20 str 14 elf ranger into the fray (thus why I'm concerned about taking OA's, which otherwise suck with unarmed).

Is this cheesy in the same way that an exploit allowing the 2H sword and shield is?

There is a difference. The guy switching between 2h weapon and shield is doing extra damage and getting extra defense. Your ranger character isn't doing any damage he doesn't normally do, though he does manage to have the possibility to make an OA every other round. I'm also guessing that this tactic isn't super effective overall anyway. Standing in one place using a bow is giving up the real advantage of being an archer, you don't have your enemy in your face. At worst I'd call it a lower order of cheese by far than the weapon/shield switching guy who is gaining the shield advantage for basically no loss.