Why take the Agile Shield Fighter feat?

[Quartz]

When you can take TWF instead? The only thing that ASF seems to do better is to allow you to use a heavy shield and a non-light weapon. But heavy shield and shortsword is iconic - and allows the fighter to swap the shield for a second short sword if wished and gain the benefits of Weapon Focus and Specialisation for both weapons - and TWF is much more flexible.

Further, a human fighter can take Improved Shield Bash and TWF at first level and ASF has an additional requirement.

Does the feat need fixing? I've yet to do the math.

 

[Patlin]

Two-Weapon Fighting [General]
You can fight with a weapon in each hand. You can make one extra attack each round with the second weapon.

Prerequisite
Dex 15.

Benefit
Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. See the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

Not everyone has a Dex of 15 or better...

 

[MadJax]

Patlin hit the nail on the head.

Also, weapon/shield size (non tower shield) has no bearing on the penalties for attacking and shield bashing in the same round, when using ASF (always -2 to all attacks). If using a heavy shield with TWF you would always take the off-hand is not light penalty to TWF, even if wielding a dagger main hand. If you are looking to take more than one shield bash each round, then the TWF tree is still your best bet with a light shield, but with a heavy shield, it just gives you that extra oompf.

 

[Quartz]

If using a heavy shield with TWF you would always take the off-hand is not light penalty to TWF, even if wielding a dagger main hand.

I don't think you're correct here: the shield would become your main weapon and the dagger your off-hand weapon - D20 3.5 doesn't have the concept of being purely single-handed.

 

[MadJax]

I don't think you're correct here: the shield would become your main weapon and the dagger your off-hand weapon - D20 3.5 doesn't have the concept of being purely single-handed.

That would be the case if you wanted to take your iteratives with your shield, which is to say the least a sub-par option. (at least in 90% of the cases)

I do know a druid in LG who uses a shield as his 'main-hand' weapon, but that's because it does 1d10 damage

 

[MarkB]

I don't think you're correct here: the shield would become your main weapon and the dagger your off-hand weapon - D20 3.5 doesn't have the concept of being purely single-handed.

Actually, it does - it just doesn't require as many feats in order to offset it. Check your PHB glossary for "off hand".

 

[Patlin]

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a heavy shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. See Table: Weapons for the damage dealt by a shield bash. Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon. For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon. If you use your shield as a weapon, you lose its AC bonus until your next action (usually until the next round). An enhancement bonus on a shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but the shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

The section I bolded tends to indicate that a shield cannot be used as a main hand weapon, at least under RAW.

 

[Iku Rex]

The section I bolded tends to indicate that a shield cannot be used as a main hand weapon, at least under RAW.

Not really. That's not what it says, and according to the official FAQ, that's not what it means. (Nor would it make sense from an in-game POV.)

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.

 

[Legildur]

While I'm no fan of the FAQ, I can accept that position IF the wielder not only declares it as a primary attack AND actually wields the shield in his primary hand.