Fighting 2 Shields without penalty

[Baumfluch]

okay got anotherone.
lets say im using light weapon and shield. so no Problems with 2 shields.
i have shield master and my shield has armor enhancement+2.
so i get also +2 on attack and damage roll because of my feat.
would the shield that has the +2 armorenhancement be treated as a magical weapon in Terms of damagereduction or sth.?

logicly i would say yes, cause thats the Point of shieldmaster, but actually its an armorenhancement and not a weaponenhancement...

[wraithstrike]

Yes it would be treated as magical.

[CountofUndolpho]

I still disagree with wielding two shields and nothing has been said so far that has changed my mind.

A shield is not the same as a longsword, a shield has ACP, is primarily for defence, gives a shield bonus, is strapped to your arm as well as held, cannot be dropped as just a free action and so on.

The one shield slot for magic items meaning that the shield in the other hand suddenly stops being a shield and turns into only a weapon I don't get either. It's still called a shield it still has all the same stats as it did why would only one part of it "turn off".

The shield spikes bit just calls out the fact it's now piercing damage, rather than it miraculously becomes just a weapon. No other shield rules change with spikes. As it states "Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack"

Why is a shield just a weapon only in this specific case but a shield all the rest of the time?
Why is there only one shield slot if you can use two?
Why does it use a specific term (shield bash) for a it's attack if it's just normal weapon?
How do you equip two of them considering the limitations stated in their description?

Remember other players come to this site to discuss the rules because they want advice. It behoves us then to actually discuss things, not just to have the usual people going "Oh yes it is cos we want it to be but you can house rule it if you want".

[Baumfluch]

i still agree that your argumentation is quite logical.
But still i think the Points you mention are lower rated then the shield appearing in the weapon Chart. especially for the spiked shield, in whoms description its clearly called a "martial weapon".

i mean thats the point of an argumentation.
we´ve got rule quotes that seem to proof a shield may be used as a weapon and treated as weapon in any Scenario. Even further a spike shielt is not only "treated" as a weapon but its literally called a "martial weapon".

and we´ve got rule quotes that seem to proof it is not a weapon, such as you brought in the Argumentation.

In that case it is not 100% clear whether the one or the other way is correct. So we´ve got good arguments for both sides, according to the rulebook. Until the Point of an official clarification, its now up to the players to rate the argument and figure out what way its ment to be correct. Sometimes in such a complex game there is no "truth" to be found until the designers tell it.

personally i think some description about how you fix the shield at your arm are not over the Point, that the shield appeares in the weapon Chart, and not over the fact a spike shield is called a "martial weapon" by the rulebook. You might give These arguments a lower value and come to the conclusion that you may not carry 2 shields as 2 weapons.

[Luthor Volandis]

I'm finding this an entertaining thread to read.

The idea of fighting with 2 shields is an interesting one and clearly leads to some grey areas in the rules (strapping them on/removing them without help sounds very difficult for one).

For PFS play i can't see a reason to say no to someone fighting with 2 shields. There are multiple feats, an enchantment, weapon tables, archetypes, traits... they all let a character use shields as weapons. I'll admit that, to me, it feels like they're intended to be used as a secondary attack when using a 'normal' 1 handed weapon, but the rules don't say you cannot use 2 shields as weapons at the same time.

I will have to thank Nefreet for linking the FAQ on weapon size increases - it certainly reads like bashing and shield spikes are even more questionable than they were previously. Looks like my Fighter will need a new shield (he does only use 1 though) ;)

[MordredofFairy]

Well, lets take a look at complete shield spikes text:

These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see “spiked shields” on Table: Weapons). You can't put spikes on a buckler or a tower shield.Otherwise, attacking with a spiked shield is like making a shield bash attack.

An enhancement bonus on a spiked shield does not improve the effectiveness of a shield bash made with it, but a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right.

So, from the bolded sections:

First one, turns it into a martial piercing weapon(as opposed to bludgeoning), and affects the damage dealt by a SHIELD BASH.
It reinforces that by saying that using a spiked shield to attack is exactly like making a shield bash attack.

Below it also says that a spiked shield can be made into a magic weapon in its own right. So aye, the shield spikes can be regularily enchanted and used to make it into a magic weapon.

Lets look further:

You can bash with a shield instead of using it for defense.

Shield Bash Attacks

You can bash an opponent with a shield, using it as an off-hand weapon. Used this way, a shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon.

For the purpose of penalties on attack rolls, treat a heavy shield as a one-handed weapon and treat a light shield as a light weapon.

Now thats interesting. Because it would seem you HAVE to use it as a off-hand weapon to attack with is as a shield bash.

If you attack using a spiked shield, we already saw that its treated as a shield bash. Shield bash needs to use it as a off-hand weapon. See no option there to use it as a main-hand weapon.

lets continue:

Shield Master (Combat)

Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.

Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

Well, do do not suffer a penalty while wielding another weapon. Unfortunately, you can only use a shield as off-hand for shield bashing with it. The good news is, Shields are indeed listed as Weapons in the Martial Section, so wielding another shield qualifies as another weapon.

I do think this is subject to faq adjustment, since the current wording eliminates all attack roll penalties, so e.g. Power Attack (This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.) would provide a "free" damage bonus on each attack, while Feats like Furious Focus only affect the first attack in a chain.

Alas, you add the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls. Unfortunately, 2-weapon fighting is off, since any attack with a shield is a shield bash, and shield bash requires off-hand weapon.
But you would get your bonus from that second shield properly, both on attack and defense.
As a payoff, you are holding a useless shield in the other hand.

Shielded Fighter may be better, wielding only one shield, in the offhand.(you always only get offhand-boni to it.) It allows you to freely swap between main and shield during a full attack, so IF you have extra attacks from two-weapon fighting, it could be reasonably said you take all those attacks with your off-hand shield, rather than the alibi-dagger you wield in your other hand(in case of swallow whole or grapple)
Also, only the flat enhancement boni will be useful.
While a weapon is more expensive, it can turn out to be a +4 courageous furious keen Nodachi for the party Barbarian, while your shield peaks on it's offensive abilities at +5, UNLESS you go ahead and enhance the shield spikes separately, in which case at least a +1 won't stack before adding special abilities.

All this, of course, is only my own view, and while i referenced some parts of the SRD, it is by no means a claim of completeness, I may have overlooked parts, and if so, gladly stand corrected.

But by my findings, it would seem you can only ever use a shield for shield bashing, and can only shield bash with your off-hand, meaning two-weapon fighting with shields is awkward at best.

[Baumfluch]

i think this part:
"using it as an off-hand weapon" was deleted by errata, searching for the source

[Talonhawke]

I'll throw in my rulings on it though understand my groups usually run with the Kirthfinder houserules document.. I allow it but I don't let you get both hands free of TWF penalties. However I do all you to take a full defensive and add both shields to your AC for the round as a stance feat around 11 BAB

[Baumfluch]

somehow my post disappeared. i try agaiN.

here we go:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm
"The text for a shield bash assumes you're making a bash as an off-hand attack, but you don't have to. You can, for example, just make a shield bash attack (at your normal, main-hand attack bonus) or shield bash with your main hand and attack with a sword in your off-hand.

Update: Page 152—In the Shield Bash Attacks section, in the first sentence, delete “using it as an off-hand weapon.”
"

due to that, its okay for the Designers to use a shield as main-Hand weapon.

so again the same Thing as before.
i can shield bash with my offhand and combine that with 2weapon fighting. it behaves like a martial weapon.
i can shield bash with my mainhand and combine that with 2 weapon fighting. it behaves like a martial weapon.
i would go even further and say it IS a martial weapon, like mentioned in the shieldspike chapter but i dont think that Point would make a difference.
but i can not shield bash with my mainhand and combine it with a shieldbash from my offhand?
cant agree here.

to the shieldmaster Thing:

so basicly we have this restriction:
"while you are wielding another weapon"

if you say "another" means "a different Kind of" you would say 2 heavy shields wont work out. but then i would take 2 different kinds of shield (like light and heavy). so i have to different weapons like a longsword and a shortsword are 2 different weapons while they are still both swords.
but i really Thing "another" would just mean "a second", because this Phrase relates to the penalties of two weapon fighting.

so if i run mainhand longsword , offhand light shield, without shield master i would have:
-2/-2
if i have shield master:
-2/-0
thats whats ment i think. you do not take penalties for 2wf.
the Little exploit here would be that both weapons are shield, so both Profit from shieldmaster making it a -0/-0.

[MordredofFairy]

Aye, if the off-hand is off, then this cheese, currently, works exactly as you wish.

Definitely would not allow the "no penalty to attacks part" on my table though since that was pretty clearly not the intent, because it allows you to attack with two one-handed weapons using power attack without taking any of the associated penalties(while using two LIGHT weapons would incur said penalties....so two-weapon fighting with 2 daggers without power attack=> -2/-2....a ranger two-weapon fighting, power attacking with 2 heavy steel shields=> 0/0)

But aye, needs to be fixed up by Paizo, because it's definitely broken then.

Regardless, Shield is still 20/x2, and two-weapon fighting by itself way weaker than two-handed fighting, and you could have way better AC with other builds, so i suppose it's a niche application.

[Baumfluch]

Im not sure whether you wouldnt get no Penalty for power attacking.
the rule says: "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon"

i think this refers to the 2WF penalties, otherwise it would make no sense. example:

i have only a shield in my hand: i go for a attack using power attack.
no weapon in other Hand -> -3 to attack roll for power attack.

i have a shield in my Hand and a dagger in my other Hand and do the exact same Thing. only std Action "attack" with power attack -> -0 to attack roll, because i hold a dagger in my other Hand.

makes no sense. but in fact straight from the rules this is correct i guess as they say "any penatlies".

and sorry for all my upper and lower cases. In Germany we write many things upper case and i just can´t get that autocorrect turned off in IE :D

[James Risner]

MordredofFairy wrote:

current wording eliminates all attack roll penalties, so e.g. Power Attack

This comes up seems like every week. Call it table variance, because I know a large number of people who simply don't read it that way at all.

[Nefreet]

^^ this.

[MordredofFairy]

James Risner wrote:

MordredofFairy wrote:

current wording eliminates all attack roll penalties, so e.g. Power Attack

This comes up seems like every week. Call it table variance, because I know a large number of people who simply don't read it that way at all.

neither would I read it that way. But it was already brought up by someone else in this thread as guide on optimizing the build.

and purely RAW it says just that: "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon"

Am i wielding another weapon? Yes. So no penalties if i attack with a shield. Purely from that, even penalties from any other kind of effect could be ignored.

Definitely not RAI. But that just shows that this feat demands to be fixed, as I requested in my post. Because EVEN if it only refers to two-weapon fighting, it does not distinguish between light and one-handed weaponry. So it's still a fact that with two one-handed shields, you would get 0/0 attack penalty, while dealing the same damage as with 2 light weapons that would be -2/-2.
At the same time you get to have extra AC and half the price for enchanting them, compared to weaponry.
The way it is written, any single two-weapon fighter should aim for shields for better attack boni and higher AC at a cheaper cost. Can't be the intent imho.
I don't care 2-shield fighting being an option, but if it would be the ultimate option for any rogue to start sneak attack while dual-wielding shields, then something is off.

[Byakko]

Taken in the context of "while you are wielding another weapon", Shield Master is clearly referring to TWF penalties. A single feat is obviously not going to negate every single possible penalty to attack rolls in the game.

If you get someone trying to claim otherwise, (figuratively) smack them upside the head. :P

[dark78660]

Originally this was not possible because Paizo said that shield could only be wielded in ones off-hand, after some errata it became rules legal to dual wield shields since they are present in the weapons section. Using Shield Master makes them extremely good choice but many GM's don't allow it like my last GM thought that it just seemed too out there even though it is a real fighting style used in parts of our world.

My idea was basicly going to be a fully armored Dwarf with 2 spiked shields that "rolled"(charged) around the battle field then full attacked(Two-Weapon Fighting) with both shields. Sadly he never came to be :(

Shield Master was intended for sword and board tactics and was back when you could not dual wield shields since a normal character didn't have two off-hands.

[blackbloodtroll]

Outside of the full attack action to two weapon fight, there is no off-hand.

Also, attacking with a shield, as your main weapon, or alone, was always possible.

There was just some confusing text, which was clarified in a FAQ.

[Baumfluch]

i think dark78660 is kinda right.
The real problem came up since the clear phrase "as an offhand attack" was deleted. without that sentence carrying two shields is not forbidden and you start to get problems. now reading shieldmaster in combination with the old rule to shield bash, its obvious that TWF is meant and not ALL possible penalties.
We will play it like this, but i think its also okay to say: "this is a game, the rules allow it, lets take it".

[wraithstrike]

Baumfluch wrote:

i think dark78660 is kinda right.

The real problem came up since the clear phrase "as an offhand attack" was deleted. without that sentence carrying two shields is not forbidden and you start to get problems. now reading shieldmaster in combination with the old rule to shield bash, its obvious that TWF is meant and not ALL possible penalties.
We will play it like this, but i think its also okay to say: "this is a game, the rules allow it, lets take it".

I have missed some of the debate, but I see someone said shields are required to be used in the off-hand. As you know that was never true. There is an FAQ that said it was never true. It was written as "off-hand" because it was assumed that the shield would be an offhand weapon not because it was a requirement.

Legally you should be able to use a shield in one hand as a shield taking up the shield slot, and in the other hand as a weapon. It won't allow you to get low cost of two shields, but the concept can be done within the rules.

[Ventnor]

Sigh... No one ever talks about the lizard skulls...

[blackbloodtroll]

I wonder if the anti-shield posters have an opinion on the Klar, Scizore, or Snarlshield.

[wraithstrike]

Ventnor wrote:

Sigh... No one ever talks about the lizard skulls...

That went over my head. What is that a reference to?

[blackbloodtroll]

wraithstrike wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Sigh... No one ever talks about the lizard skulls...

That went over my head. What is that a reference to?

Klars.

[CountofUndolpho]

I can see where you guys are coming from. But!

The inclusion of shield in the weapon tables is still subordinate to the actual descriptions for shields, specific v. general. The weapon entries are purely to give you the data to make a shield bash work.

Again I don't see how they can become not a shield when used to attack, you make a "shield bash" with them.

To say "because my shield slot is full my other shield is now just a weapon" doesn't make sense. If you try to double up on any other slot, one of the items doesn't work/can't be equipped you don't just lose a component of it.

If I wear 2 items in the same slot only the first one works. If I wear a belt of tumbling and a belt of blades in the same slot they don't both work because they are different effects - one still won't work because they are both belts!

Yet apparently that's fine if it's shields? Why? Just because they can be used for a shield bonus as well as to bash with and can be enhanced for attacking as well as enhanced for defence doesn't stop it being a shield. Is a +2 Long Sword of defending either Armour or Weapon depending on which slots are full or how you spend the bonus?

You only get one shield slot because you can only use one shield unless anyone can find anything that mentions shields rather than just weapons. Removing the term off-hand doesn't change the essential nature of the item.

[LazarX]

Luthor Volandis wrote:

but the rules don't say you cannot use 2 shields as weapons at the same time.

The rules don't say that you can't pull rabbits out of your helm, either, or that you can't sing the William Tell overture when you're dead, but I doubt that anyone would justify an argument based on that statement's logic.

The rules are very seldom about what you can't do, save as a limitation on their main structure which is about what you CAN do.

[CountofUndolpho]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I wonder if the anti-shield posters have an opinion on the Klar, Scizore, or Snarlshield.

I presume I am an anti-shield poster.

Klar: acts as a (very) light spiked shield but does slashing and is a one-handed weapon...?! so actually it should act as a Heavy one-handed bladed shield? or... we wait for the UE errata?

Snarlshield: as far as I can tell it just adds Disarm feature to the Shield Bash it's still a shield, it just gets +2 if you attempt to disarm someone with your shield bash.

Scizore: Is a weapon not a shield it has no shield entry or description. Though it does give a shield bonus. It also, considering it's provenance, has a relatively complete description that makes sense.

[blackbloodtroll]

You know what they all share?

They are all weapons.

Not just some heavy object that can be used as a weapon.

[CountofUndolpho]

To follow the logic through I'm wearing my +3 plate mail but using my +1AC/+2Attack spiked breast plate for attack - because my armour slot is full I'll use it as a weapon instead...

"You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case" so that's ok then?

[CountofUndolpho]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You know what they all share?

They are all weapons.

Not just some heavy object that can be used as a weapon.

Don't just say "oh yes they are" say why they aren't shields (apart from Scizore which no one is arguing with).

[blackbloodtroll]

Why does being a shield, make them no longer a weapon?

[Melkiador]

The default behavior is not having improved shield bash, where a shield does cease to function as a shield when you attack with it. This implies that a shield can be used as a weapon independent of its shield-ness.

[CountofUndolpho]

Melkiador wrote:

The default behavior is not having improved shield bash, where a shield does cease to function as a shield when you attack with it. This implies that a shield can be used as a weapon independent of its shield-ness.

Why would it imply that? It changes nothing about it's shieldness apart from meaning you don't get it's shield bonus when bashing with it - which is in the shield rules and therefore part of it's shieldness.

[CountofUndolpho]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Why does being a shield, make them no longer a weapon?

Because it has specific rules for it's use under the shield description. Under its weapon entry it says see the shield entry in armour for how it works.

Does it follow the same action economy as a weapon if you use it to bash? For example does it miraculously change to allow it to be dropped as a free action rather than a move?

[Melkiador]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

The default behavior is not having improved shield bash, where a shield does cease to function as a shield when you attack with it. This implies that a shield can be used as a weapon independent of its shield-ness.

Why would it imply that? It changes nothing about it's shieldness apart from meaning you don't get it's shield bonus when bashing with it - which is in the shield rules and therefore part of it's shieldness.

Because to use it as a weapon means you can't use it as a shield. You have to choose if it is a weapon or a shield.

[CountofUndolpho]

It doesn't mean that though does it? it doesn't stop being a shield, you still need Shield Proficiency to avoid the ACP penalty to attack even if you never use it to get a shield bonus.

[CountofUndolpho]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You know what they all share?

They are all weapons.

Not just some heavy object that can be used as a weapon.

"Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can't create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls."

[blackbloodtroll]

A Battleaxe can be used as a weapon.

[CountofUndolpho]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

A Battleaxe can be used as a weapon.

Or as a tea tray?

[blackbloodtroll]

Does that imply a Battleaxe is not a weapon?

Why do you assume that noting that something can be used as a weapon, not only implies it is not a weapon, but somehow proves it to not be a weapon?

[blackbloodtroll]

Could not any weapon, be used as a weapon, because it is a weapon?

[CountofUndolpho]

A spurious argument.
A Battleaxe is only described under weapons in Pathfinder and has no specific rules in it's description and so in PFRPG terms is a weapon full stop.

A shield in PFRPG terms is listed under Armour and Shields and under Weapons. It also has specific rules ascribed to it in a number of places. So it is a Shield primarily and it's use as a weapon doesn't change that designation, you can't ignore all it's shield rules and properties because you want to bash with it.

[Numarak]

Weapon Training(Ex)

Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.

...
Close: ...,heavy shield,...,light shield,...

I think that, in general terms, the best way to consider a shield is as a weapon.

Some weapons have specific rules. So do shields. The aldori dueling sword have lots of publishings around it, but it is still a weapon.

There are several instances, not just the one I quoted, that suggest we should treat shields as weapons; there are specific rules that modify the general function of shields in regard of functioning as weapons, we all agree on that, but there is no limit or boundries regarding the number of instances of specific rules that points when something becomes another different thing. Not even in Pathfinder. Say, if an object A, which is a tool, has 5 specific rules that show that does not work as a tool, is not a tool anymore?. It still is a tool with 5 specifications.

---

The important questions should be: is the Feat overpowered or gamebreaking? It produces a set of inconsistent rules, no matter what reading we make of them?

If any of these questions is answered with a 'yes', then we need a FAQ or clarification; if both are answered 'no', then arguing if shields are strictly or not strictly weapons is a pointless argument. Any given rule, we should expect some variation at the interpretation.

[CountofUndolpho]

So you are OK with using two magic shield even though you only have one slot? One of them just doesn't give a shield bonus because it can change it's designation from Shield to Weapon at will.

By that logic the plate mail and spiked breastplate option above is also legit.

The fact that you can't give a Masterwork bonus to attack to a Shield supports the supposition that it's a weapon?

The fact there is are separate sections under the headings Armour and magic armour properties for shields means its just a weapon with fancy rules?

If it's a weapon why is there a shield proficiency skill? Why not just leave it under Martial Weapon Proficiency. Though that would cause problems for bucklers and Tower Shields. That's alright they can't be used as weapons so they are just shields... but shields are weapons?!

My head hurts.

[Baumfluch]

sry i think ist pretty clear:

"Used this way, a heavy shield is a martial bludgeoning weapon"
we have that one. As i use a shield to attack it IS a martial weapon.

"These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon"
we have that one, pointing out a shield with spike is turned into a "martial piercing weapon" instead of being bludgeoning.

"Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons"
this one:
i can clearly use them as martial weapon

and what melkiador said. if i have no improved shieldbash i can choose wheather to use it as weapon or as shield.

We´ve got stated out, that you might carry your shield in the main or offhand, just as you like.

and some more.

Im not 100% sure but saying okay, you can carry 2 Magic weapons, but you cant take Advantage of 2 Magic shields, even if these are you´re weapons, is already is already not Logical.
saying you cant carry 2 shields at all, since there is only 1 Slot for Magic shields, even if you enhance them as weapons is just terrifying. cant agree with that.

in my eyes anything Points Towards treating shields both as shield and weapon. thats possible. i´d value the arguments for allowing 2 shields higher. since you can do anything, that you could do with a weapon aswell with a shield

[James Risner]

MordredofFairy wrote:

even penalties from any other kind of effect could be ignored.

Definitely not RAI.

Since all RAW is interpreted, it isn't RAW for some people.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Baumfluch wrote:

I did find the Bashing enhancement aswell, but i dont think its actually good.

The pathfinder weaponsize table is taken from 3.5.
If you have a medium sized heavy spiked steel shield it deals 1d6. making it bashing, granting +2 size categories you go to 2d6.
1d6 Bonus dmg ist just like fire or ice enhancement. and its a weapon enhancesment, so you have to pay more if you want to enhance it with ac aswell, because it is a different Kind of enhancement.
dont think thats worth it. It starts getting worth if you are bigger then medium sized creature, and it gets less worth if you are smaller then medium sized.

i made that build for a fighter in our Group.
we are 4 PCs, and as we started the campaign (our first PF round) we thought having a tank is effective. In fact he had like 30+ AC but srsly 0 dmg, so at least intelligend foes just ignored him. It didnt really work out for us. Thats what i love about the shieldbased two-weapon-fighter. He still has decent defensive but deals a pretty good ammount of damage, having some Utilitys with his shield (like free bullrush) plus scaling pretty well until like Level 15.

I would also re-read this part from the feat:

Shield Master wrote:

You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.

RAW, this would mean that any penalties thrown at you mean nothing, but the intent behind this is that it removes TWF penalties anyway. So even without your Two-Weapon Warrior features, a dual-shield attacker would be able to TWF without penalty as long as they have this feat.

Also keep in mind that you can enhance your shield both as an armor piece, and as a weapon. So you could tack on +5 (AC) Bashing with +5 (Hit) Defending on a given shield, granting you a solid +11 Shield AC (including Enhancements and Defending), while still maintaining a +5 Enhancement Bonus to Hit and Damage. It makes Shields much more expensive to enhance compared to other weapons, but it makes their potential that much more powerful than other weapons.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I wonder if the anti-shield posters have an opinion on the Klar, Scizore, or Snarlshield.

Klar: acts as a (very) light spiked shield but does slashing and is a one-handed weapon...?! so actually it should act as a Heavy one-handed bladed shield? or... we wait for the UE errata?

Considering James Jacobs, the person who invented the Klar, states that properties such as Bashing would not affect the blade on the Klar (and yet it would still affect the Klar itself), would lead your silly interpretation to mean nothing, especially when it denotes itself as a "Light Shield with Armor Spikes." (Which ironically enough, would supersede the table entry the Klar is listed as, if we take the precedent that Feats present to us, in that Description > Table.)

[Talonhawke]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

So you are OK with using two magic shield even though you only have one slot? One of them just doesn't give a shield bonus because it can change it's designation from Shield to Weapon at will.

By that logic the plate mail and spiked breastplate option above is also legit.

The fact that you can't give a Masterwork bonus to attack to a Shield supports the supposition that it's a weapon?

The fact there is are separate sections under the headings Armour and magic armour properties for shields means its just a weapon with fancy rules?

If it's a weapon why is there a shield proficiency skill? Why not just leave it under Martial Weapon Proficiency. Though that would cause problems for bucklers and Tower Shields. That's alright they can't be used as weapons so they are just shields... but shields are weapons?!

My head hurts.

Would you allow magic weapon to be cast on a shield? Weapon Focus or specalization? What about armor spikes?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

So you are OK with using two magic shield even though you only have one slot? One of them just doesn't give a shield bonus because it can change it's designation from Shield to Weapon at will.

By that logic the plate mail and spiked breastplate option above is also legit.

The fact that you can't give a Masterwork bonus to attack to a Shield supports the supposition that it's a weapon?

The fact there is are separate sections under the headings Armour and magic armour properties for shields means its just a weapon with fancy rules?

If it's a weapon why is there a shield proficiency skill? Why not just leave it under Martial Weapon Proficiency. Though that would cause problems for bucklers and Tower Shields. That's alright they can't be used as weapons so they are just shields... but shields are weapons?!

My head hurts.

I think the Shield itself being a magic slot is a major oversight in the rules. Any sort of subject that one could cheese out from using two shields (HURR DURR, DOUBLE SHIELD AC!) would be overran by other written rules in the Core. For example, the Double Shield AC cheese cannot possibly be done, even if the Shield wasn't a slotted item, because Same-type bonuses don't stack (and Shield bonuses aren't a stat that can stack infinitely). Another example is Bashing (with extra thanks to the new FAQ) wouldn't cause you to Bash as if 4 sizes larger because size increases and effective size increases don't stack with themselves (though a size and an effective size increase would); just as well, the extra size increases only apply to the item in question, not the character, meaning no double-dipping. The same would be applicable to a character trying to use two +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending Shields, as untyped bonuses from the same source (in this case, the Defending property) wouldn't stack. Though you can certainly make a +5 AC/+5 Hit Defending and a +5 AC/+5 Hit Guardian combo, granting +11 AC and +5 Saves, while granting +5 to Hit and Damage as well because Shield Master.

But ultimately yes, Shields as Weapons have extra rules, because they encompass both an armor-type item, and a weapon item, at the same time.

[Davor]

CountofUndolpho wrote:

So you are OK with using two magic shield even though you only have one slot? One of them just doesn't give a shield bonus because it can change it's designation from Shield to Weapon at will.

By that logic the plate mail and spiked breastplate option above is also legit.

By your logic, players can't wield weapons, as there is no weapon slot at all.

CountofUndolpho wrote:

The fact that you can't give a Masterwork bonus to attack to a Shield supports the supposition that it's a weapon?

Shields work differently. They are simultaneously shields and weapons, and proficiency with them works differently. For example: A bard is proficient with shields, but not with martial weapons. Therefore, while he ignores the shield's ACP on attack rolls, he still takes a non-proficiency penalty when attempting to use it as a weapon, since he lacks the appropriate proficiency. Alternatively, a class with Martial Weapon Proficiency that lacks proficiency with a shield takes the ACP when attempting to use a shield as a weapon, but without the Proficiency penalty.

CountofUndolpho wrote:

The fact there is are separate sections under the headings Armour and magic armour properties for shields means its just a weapon with fancy rules?

If it's a weapon why is there a shield proficiency skill? Why not just leave it under Martial Weapon Proficiency. Though that would cause problems for bucklers and Tower Shields. That's alright they can't be used as weapons so they are just shields... but shields are weapons?!

My head hurts.

Actually, since shields start off as defensive implements (under Armor/Shields), I'd say they're more like armor with fancy rules that allow you to use them as a weapon, not unlike Spiked Armor. The only thing stopping you from doing the silly thing above (Dual-Wielding Armor) is that you can't actually, physically, wear two suits of armor. Nothing stops you from wielding one shield in each hand, one as a shield, and the other as a weapon. Since the AC bonus is of a similar type, it doesn't stack anyways.