Shield bash

[Wippit Guud]

Do you suffer the -4/-8 penalties if you chose to shield bash if you don't have two-weapon style?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do you suffer the -4/-8 penalties if you chose to shield bash if you don't have two-weapon style?

More information required.

Are you attacking with your shield and another weapon?

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

Yupp. If you only attack with your shield as a one-handed weapon wielded in one or two hands, you'll have no penalties. (Whippet)

If you attack with shield and weapon, you'll suffer.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yupp. If you only attack with your shield as a one-handed weapon wielded in one or two hands, you'll have no penalties.

Well, now...

A shield bash is performed as an off-hand attack (from the shield description in the equipment list).

Doesn't the 3.5 glossary still state a -4 attack penalty for off-hand attacks?

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

I would be glad if that's the case, Hyp

Silly shield bashers ...

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Well, now...

A shield bash is performed as an off-hand attack (from the shield description in the equipment list).

Doesn't the 3.5 glossary still state a -4 attack penalty for off-hand attacks?

-Hyp.

I think that description assumes that you are wielding a normal weapon in addition to fighting with the shield, hence the off-hand penalty. Don't let a poorly written description overrule common sense.

 

[shilsen]

I think that description assumes that you are wielding a normal weapon in addition to fighting with the shield, hence the off-hand penalty. Don't let a poorly written description overrule common sense.

I don't think so. The glossary definition simply refers to the off-hand as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)". So an off-hand attack would be an attack with a weapon/shield held in the off-hand, whether you're using a weapon in the primary hand or not. If your right-handed character switches his longsword to his left hand to pick up something, is suddenly attacked, and responds with the longsword in his left hand, he still takes the off-hand penalty, even though he is not dual-wielding.

 

[0-hr]

Don't let a poorly written description overrule common sense.

Wouldn't common sense rule against taking your shield and using both hands to bash someone over the head with it?

IMO, the shield always suffers off-hand penalties because it simply is not designed to be used as an offensive weapon and cannot make use of the wielder's full strength in that capacity (and no, Captain America is not a valid counter argument).

And for balance reasons, I don't want some munchking doing a x2 power attack with shield charge + spikes spell + yadda yadda yadda.

So common sense, game balance, and the rules as written, all work towards the same goal for me. Only the power gaming rules rapers will be put out.

 

[Darklone]

I would have prefered to consider the shield as an improvised weapon instead of this silly shield bash off hand rule quark.

Edit: Spelling is difficult.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think so. The glossary definition simply refers to the off-hand as "a character's weaker or less dexterous hand (usually the left)".

Of course, apart from an oblique passing reference in the Buckler description, that's the only place I'm aware of in the 3.5 Core Rules that refers to a -4 penalty in any situation apart from Two-Weapon Fighting.

At least 3E had the "Normal" section of the Ambidexterity feat that spelled it out clearly.

A rule that only appears in the glossary, and nowhere in the text, is a contender for a "Cut'n'Paste from 3E" Oops Award.

But as Caliban noted, the "drop all held items" part of the Stunned description only appeared in the Glossary in 3E... and it was upheld as official... so there's precedent.

-Hyp.