Dual Wielding Shields

I am not seeing anywhere that states Shield bonus to AC is unique and Spike Shields are Light Weapons

You should be able to Dual Wield Spiked Shields for a +4 AC Bonus while also having 1d6/1d6 Weapons

It could have been +5 but Two Weapon Defense specifically states that You never gain this bonus when you are wielding a shield
Hmmm it seems you can by RAW
 How silly
Also you could wear one as a helmet, and if you're a paladin, give one to your mount so it could Three-Weapon Fight with hooves and shield.
Also you could wear one as a helmet, and if you're a paladin, give one to your mount so it could Three-Weapon Fight with hooves and shield.



No, You cant

Everything I said is legal by RAW

You are just saying random pointless ....
Reminds me of a dwarven defender character from 10 years ago or so.
The mocking from pcs and nps alike may not make it worth it though. ;)
Also you could wear one as a helmet, and if you're a paladin, give one to your mount so it could Three-Weapon Fight with hooves and shield.



No, You cant

Everything I said is legal by RAW

You are just saying random pointless ....

His point, I think, is that you are basing your argument on the fact that the rules don't specifically say you CAN'T do things.  They also don't say that you can't wear a shield as a helmet, give a shield to your horse, etc.

The rules don't list everything that you can't do, because it would be an endless list.  Common sense must be used.  In this case, I would say that means you can't use two shields.

Of course, you are free to present the case to your DM.

I could see someone using two spiked Shields. They would only get +2 to AC, IMO, but they could fight that way. Actually seems really strong to TWF with even a single Spiked Shield.
The problem is that spiked shields are already too strong, and a TWF user who doesn't use one is making a real poor choice, comparatively. Its only downsides are it's not a finesse weapon and can't be thrown. For STR user who wants to maximize melee damage, those don't matter at all, and +2 free AC is a huge bonus.

Compound that with the fact that DND Next has few, if any, typed and non-stackable bonuses, and you'll see silly **** like this appear more frequently.
Also you could wear one as a helmet, and if you're a paladin, give one to your mount so it could Three-Weapon Fight with hooves and shield.



No, You cant

Everything I said is legal by RAW

You are just saying random pointless ....

His point, I think, is that you are basing your argument on the fact that the rules don't specifically say you CAN'T do things.  They also don't say that you can't wear a shield as a helmet, give a shield to your horse, etc.

The rules don't list everything that you can't do, because it would be an endless list.  Common sense must be used.  In this case, I would say that means you can't use two shields.

Of course, you are free to present the case to your DM.


The rules in fact say "Shields are carried in one hand", so you couldn't use one as a helmet or give one to your horse. Even if you could find a hand on a horse it has no prof and no shield attack in it's entry so it can't alter it's attack. So it IS spelled out that Veggie-sama was just being silly.

Now as far as common sense, there is a paragon path in 4E that lets you use twin shields in combat (snapping testudo, dragon 385) and pathfinder has a feat to allow it (www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/4...) so how again it it far fetched?  

It doesn't matter whether it's realistic, or whether there's a history of doing it in past editions, or whatever. It's far fetched because it's seriously unbalanced compared to other options. As far as history goes, notice the Pathfinder ability requires a 3-feat buy-in and comes with restrictions. There are no restrictions here.

A good way to detect unbalance is to find something that, on the face of it, seems ridiculous but turns out to be mechanically superior to normal options. Taking RAW as its literal word without any kind of filter can be problematic. If the shield entry merely said "Shields must be held" instead of "carried in one hand," then maybe the horse and hat examples could be argued just as strenuously as dual spiked shields. However, the sentences are more-or-less stating the same idea (the latter with greater specificity), and it would be a mistake to think that one sentence is more permissive than the other. Wearing a shield on your head is ridiculous, as is swinging two shields around like Captain America without any drawbacks, feat buy-ins, or other indicators that the Rules As Intended supports or recognizes that playstyle.

Anyway, this is a beta test. If you aim to look for how to break the rules, you will succeed quite easily. I am glad that Talamere located this goof in the rules. If anyone's arguing that it's not a goof, then I don't know what to say to you. So if we recognize that it's a goof, let's move to the next step and offer suggestions for how to improve it.

Somewhere else, I said that the spiked shield damage should be nerfed to 1d4 and AC bonus reduced to +1. Two-Weapon Defense should then allowed to boost it to +2. Shield bonuses should not be stackable with one another.
Being perfectly serious, it seems like it would be hard to hit someone holding two sheilds.

That said, if they're attacking with those shields, it would be easier to hit them.

Shields losing their bonus until the beginning of your next turn when attacking with them (and letting normal shields do a d4 B again) would fix this if you asked me.
Shields offering a +2 bonus to AC take facing into consideration (or, rather, lack thereof).

A shield is everywhere, all the time -- all around you.

If you understand this basic assumption, reason dictates that two shields would not be more effective.

At any given time, you are only using one shield to block an incoming attack.

Wielding two spiked shields offers the opportunity to two-weapon attack, sure, but no stacking AC bonuses.

The only real benefit would be maintaining a +2 bonus to AC in the event one of your shields were disarmed. 

Danny

If you understand this basic assumption, reason dictates that two shields would not be more effective.

At any given time, you are only using one shield to block an incoming attack.

Wielding two spiked shields offers the opportunity to two-weapon attack, sure, but no stacking AC bonuses.



Aye but the rules need to say that, after all reason only lasts until people start shooting fireballs from their fingers

Somewhere else, I said that the spiked shield damage should be nerfed to 1d4 and AC bonus reduced to +1. Two-Weapon Defense should then allowed to boost it to +2. Shield bonuses should not be stackable with one another.


I agree with the 1d4 and +1 AC (Return of the Buckler?), It doesnt even need the feat for +1 AC

If we compare to standard TWF
1d4+1 AC for 0 Feat vs 1d6+1 AC for 1 Feat
Sign In to post comments