Shield Bash and Second Attack

[Lys]

*MY* interpretation, which could be totally wrong, is that there's a design assumption saying that "you can't use a Shield (which is in your off-hand) at the same time you use an off-hand Weapon." Just think of the logistics - using your off-hand to swing a Weapon -WHILE AT THE SAME TIME- using your off-hand to deflect blows. Yeah, these are six Second rounds, but you're talking about combining a stabbing/sweeping/driving motion at the same time you're presenting your forearm statically in a way to deflect/absorb blows. Even if you want to allow that, imagine using the logistics of swinging a Weapon with your off-hand and -IN THE SAME MOTION- (because it's part of the attack) slamming someone with your Shield ... the physics don't work for me.

I think most of the confusion stems from people who think it would be super sweet to have 2 broadswords and a shield.

The current wording of the "using a shield" section leaves it open-ended ("restricted to 1H weapons" has, as demonstrated, opened up interpretation that "of course the weapon I use for Second Weapon will be 1H, so I'm going 1H + 1H + Shield" ).

Nobody in this thread has argued in favour of being able to wield two weapons and a shield. That's a silly and nonsensical interpretation that i've yet to see anybody actually put forth. The rules are very clear that if you have a shield in your hand then you can't wield anything else, with the exception of a buckler and a bow, and i see no disagreement on this. What i and others were saying is that we interpret Shield Bash to let you use your shield as a one handed weapon, because the Talent literally says that the Adept "uses the shield as a weapon". So what the errata as written sees to say is that you can attack with your shield (Melee Weapons + Shield Bash) and then your spear (Second Weapon), but not with your spear (Melee Weapons) and then your shield (Second Weapon + Shield Bash). This was very weird to me, so i raised the question of why is first order of operations is okay but the second isn't.

Now thanks to Metaxes' comments in this thread, it appears that his intent is not that you can't use Shield Bash and Second Weapon in the same attack, but rather that you cannot use Shield Bash and Second Weapon in the same turn. This is not what the errata conveys, since "not compatible" suggests the former, the same way that Down Strike and Crushing Blow are also not compatible in the same attack because they replace each other. If the intent is really about same-turn incompatibility the errata should be rewritten to explicitly say so: Second Weapon cannot be used in the same turn as Shield Bash. Also adding an explanation that this is so that sword and board fighters do not get the benefits of both a shield and two weapon fighting may be helpful.

[The Undying]

I don't think we need to resort to calling opposing opinions "silly and nonsensical." Regardless, rest assured that the topics of 2H + Shield and 2x1H + Shield have indeed been floated on the forum. I, too, feel the intent of the segment in the player's guide is sufficient to ward it off, but I can also see how some might not be willing to make the logic jump.

As far as the errata wording, I think it's been well established that Mataxes and comrades are looking at the wording and will provide an update at some point, so no real need to mince it or re-examine it at this point. Jousting about word definitions isn't super productive, as Mataxes said. Honestly, at this point, maybe they should just throw their hands up and say just say "Shield Bash cannot be used with X, Y, and Z" without trying to explain how they are incompatible.

As to using them in the same turn, I'd personally recommend against using that phrase without bolstering what it means to switch close combat stances (for lack of a better word). Simple Actions are left to GM discretion, Simple Actions include donning a shield and sheathing/drawing weapons, and while I am personally not okay with numerous Simple Actions to swap stances during a single turn, others are. Then, you just get into "I took of my shield, why can't I use X" jousting.

[Lys]

It's hardly an opposing opinion when nobody is actually holding it. Perhaps people elsewhere have mooted the point, but i haven't and neither has anyone else in this thread, and yet responses were worded as if that was the case. It's not fun to feel like people are putting words in your mouth, particularly when you consider the words in question to be ridiculous. To me the notion of Shield Bashing, then letting go of your shield so you can draw a another weapon to Second Weapon with, is far too silly to contemplate. There's no need for the rules to implicitly support it. Either you can Shield Bash and Second Attack on the same turn by using your sword and board in tandem, or you can't. As far as i'm concerned game balance is a quite sufficient justification either way. That said writing that Second Weapon cannot be used while wielding a shield would convey the idea just fine, so i don't disapprove of that wording if it's preferred. What i want is not have my group's Warrior make the same argument i did, that the errata only forbids Second Weapon + Shield Bash on the same attack, and as currently written it is easily read that way.

[ChrisDDickey]

Putting aside changes to the errata, it occurs to me that there is a 2nd reason why 2nd attack and Shield Bash is incompatible.

Page 120 says that "Unless noted otherwise, a character may only use a given talent once per round".
Shield Bash does not say it can be used more than once per round, so can't be used a second time.

On the other hand, 2nd Attack says it must be made with the same weapon as the first attack of the round, and if the ruling is that a shield bash does not use a shield as a Weapon... I am not really sure where that leaves us if the first attack of the round is a melee weapon attack that did not use any weapon. I suppose one could conceivably make the 2nd attack as an improvised melee weapon.

[The Undying]

Always something to relearn. I'd completely forgotten about the "once per round" stuff! Good call.

On the Second Attack stuff, I don't think you have to worry. You can't Melee Weapon without a melee weapon. If you chose to use an object not identified as a "weapon" by the system, pretty sure it becomes an "improvised weapon" for the round. So, it's temporarily a weapon, just not a good one (subject to the attack penalty and probably no base damage), and not a "true" weapon by system terms (and therefore ineligible for things that help weapons, like Forge Weapon). But, that's the melee weapon for the first attack, and compliance with Second Attack means you must use it again. So, smash somebody with your tankard with Melee Weapon (the Talent), then you have to smash him again with the same tankard that round to use Second Attack (pretty robust tankard). BONUS, if you aren't rocking a shield, you could ALSO smash him with your other tankard (because being a good adventurer, you ARE dual fisting your ales, right?) using Second Weapon, during which time the other tankard also becomes an "improvised weapon" for that round. FURTHER, by system, someone could disarm you of your improvised weapon (can't remember the ability off the top of my head ... gonna feel like a moron if it's Disarm...) - hair splitting about when it becomes an improvised weapon then ensues.

[The Undying]

Realized I misread your question.

The shield is not used for the Attack if you Shield Bash. Mataxes has not explicitly stated this, but I think it's sufficiently clear (I presented him two options "it is used as the weapon for the Attack or it is just the vehicle for Damage," and he quite clearly stated the latter).

Let's assume you have a sword and a shield - pretty standard 1H + shield setup. You Attack with your sword - Melee Weapon test. When the Attack is successful, you may use any available and applicable Damage Replacement Talents. Shield Bash is a Damage Replacement that is available (hasn't been used yet) and applicable (you are equipped with a shield). If you chose to apply Shield Bash, you roll that Damage test (STR + Rank) rather than the sword Damage test (STR + sword damage). Both should likely get the +2 Step for any extra successes on the Attack roll since they are both Damage tests. You have now completed the Melee Weapon Attack, you are still armed with the Weapon that you made the Melee Weapon Attack with (i.e., the sword), so you can use Second Attack with that sword.

You never Attack with the shield, the shield is never a weapon. This is the case even when you use Shield Bash.

[Mataxes]

Wow... did we completely talk past each other on that... and I guess I need to drill down a bit more.

In the narrative of the game, the adept is totally attacking the target with his shield. Bashing them right in the face (or equivalent).

The adept uses Melee Weapon for the attack test, representing they are using a "weapon" (in this case the shield) to strike their target (as opposed to striking without a weapon, which would be Unarmed Combat). This can be done even if the adept otherwise isn't wielding a weapon (1-hand sword, axe, whatever).

(So, yes, an "unarmed" character with a shield can use Shield Bash -- but they still use Melee Weapon as the attack test, not unarmed.)

To put it another way, the Shield Bash talent defines the conditions under which a shield can be used as a "weapon". Outside of those conditions, a shield is not a weapon and not otherwise a valid target for things that affect weapons (like Forge Weapon, or Disarm). The character forgoes their "normal" attack, replacing the damage with the Shield Bash talent, and gain an automatic knockdown test on the target -- getting an advantage over the traditional "Attack to Knockdown" option, which doesn't normally do damage.

Is that any clearer? I misunderstood what you were getting at with your division between "weapon" and "vehicle for damage" thinking you were talking about weapons in the way they are handled as a game mechanic tag (which shields are not). I didn't think you were implying some kind of situation where the adept is attacking with their sword but somehow dealing damage with the shield (which is what I took from your most recent post).

[The Undying]

Thanks for the clarification! Yes, it would seem we talked past each other.

However, at this point, I'd have to say that this Talent is all kinds of in disarray. Nothing that clarification can't fix, but it seems to really bleed out from its status as Damage Replacement, which is nice and clear from a game concept point of view. As you mentioned before, this is in some middle-ground between Attack and Damage Replacement.

Given the brevity of the Talent text, might just be easier in the errata to just override the published material. The messiness of the Talent, though, requires a good chunk of clarification (IMHO). Here'd be my suggestion (and remember, this is just my suggestion, I am not stating it as fact):

Use the following text in place of the published material's Talent text: The adept bashes an opponent with their shield in an attempt to knock them off balance. The adept must first make a close combat melee Attack using the shield (during which the shield count as a weapon, not an improvised weapon). If the Attack is successful, the adept makes a Shield Bash test as the Damage test, with Physical Armor reducing the result. The target of the attack makes a Knockdown test (see p. 383) using the damage dealt as the Difficulty Number.

CLARIFICATION: Since it requires a melee attack using the shield, only the following Talents/Skills can be used for the Attack: Melee Weapon, Momentum Attack, Second Attack*.

CLARIFICATION: A shield is not a weapon, although most anything can be used during an Attack as an improvised weapon. The use of this Talent allows the shield to act as a weapon, not an improvised weapon, for the preceding Attack. Therefore, use of this Talent must be declared before the Attack, and the Talent must be used if the Attack is successful. Otherwise, the shield must be treated as an improvised weapon as usual (see p. 392).

CLARIFICATION: Per the "Talent Test" rules (see p. 120), this Talent can only be used once per turn (because it is not otherwise noted in the Talent text). If it is used during Melee Weapon, it cannot be used during Momentum Attack or Second Attack.

CLARIFICATION*: Per the "Talent Test" rules (see p. 120), this Talent can only be used once per turn (because it is not otherwise noted in the Talent text). Furthermore, it is this Talent that allows use of the shield as a weapon and not an improvised weapon during the attack. Therefore, if an adept wants to use the Shield Bash in conjunction with Second Attack, the shield must be used as the weapon in both Attacks, and whichever Attack does not use Shield Bash must treat the shield as an improvised weapon (see p. 392).

CLARIFICATION^: When a shield is equipped at the start of the round, the creature cannot use their off-hand for Attacks for the duration of the round. Therefore, Shield Bash cannot be used with Second Weapon by using the shield as the weapon for the Attack.

* You (Mataxes) said that the tentative answer for Second Attack is "no, can't be used" but that it could change. I just drafted some (rather clunky) material that allows it. Easy enough to remove the Talent from the clarified list of allows Attacks and remove the clarification that applies to it - or replace it with an explanation as to why it isn't allowed, or just not explain it.

^ This is super my opinion. Just trying to make sense of the swapping stances. If this mechanic isn't desired, the first sentence, and the leading "Therefore" of the second can easily be removed for a simple statement.

Extra note: This is all assuming that there's a desire to treat the shield as a weapon for the attack rather than an improvised weapon. If this isn't desired, a number of these item go out the window, but a different, more brief, clarification is warranted. Here would be an alternate recommendation with that in mind:

Use the following text in place of the published material's Talent text: The adept bashes an opponent with their shield in an attempt to knock them off balance. The adept must first make a close combat melee Attack using the shield as an improvised weapon (see p. 392). If the Attack is successful, the adept may make a Shield Bash test as the Damage test, with Physical Armor reducing the result. The target of the attack makes a Knockdown test (see p. 383) using the damage dealt as the Difficulty Number.

CLARIFICATION: Since it requires a melee attack using the shield, only the following Talents/Skills can be used for the Attack: Melee Weapon, Momentum Attack, Second Attack*.

CLARIFICATION: Per the "Talent Test" rules (see p. 120), this Talent can only be used once per turn (because it is not otherwise noted in the Talent text). If it is used during Melee Weapon, it cannot be used during Momentum Attack or Second Attack.

CLARIFICATION^: When a shield is equipped at the start of the round, the creature cannot use their off-hand for Attacks for the duration of the round. Therefore, Shield Bash cannot be used with Second Weapon by using the shield as an improvised weapon for the Attack.

[Lys]

Undying, if took the approach you're taking to Shield Bash here and applied it to every Talent in the book, the Talent section would triple in length. All of those clarifications are unnecessary as they either referencing already written rules, or are otherwise covered by the existing text. Shield Bash says it lets you use the shield "as a weapon", therefore it's not an improvised weapon, else it would have said "improvised". Since you are using it as a weapon, you obviously can't use Unarmed to attack with it. Everything else is already established in the rules and does not bear repeating.

Honestly i feel like Shield Bash as written is perfectly fine and quite clear as to what it does. It lets you use your shield as a weapon, substituting your damage step for your Shield Bash step, and do double duty a knockdown attack. You use it with any close combat attack talent that can be used while wielding a weapon. The errata that it's not compatible with Second Weapon, as well as the forthcoming errata that it is also not compatible with Second Attack, constitutes a change, not a clarification. Now i do think it's a good change, and i acknowledge it's what the designers intended all along, but it's still a change with respect to how it's actually written. You'll note that there was no confusion about Shield Bash prior to this new errata being put out, despite many people posting in the forums being in active games. People understood how it worked, until suddenly it worked differently.

[The Undying]

*shrug* Different strokes, I guess. Most Talents are fine as they are and don't require clarification. Beefing up content where it's warranted doesn't mean that suddenly everything get beefed up, so I think have nothing to worry about there.

Seems to me that the volume of this thread is a good indication that the talent is NOT fine as it is currently written. Lack of previous questions does not mean lack of confusion: I never gave this Talent a second glance until I saw it in the errata Thread, and the guy who had it in our group never used it. However as soon as it came to my attention, it spawned LOTS of questions. For all any of us know, a poll of 20 tables could indicate that people are using this Talent 11 different, incompatible ways. To them, it may seem like it's completely clear to them, and yet the fact that there is so diverse an interpretation would mean that there are clearly problems with it. Finally, the fact that The ED Design Team feels that clarification is needed (and I expect they are clarifications to bring use of the Talent in line with their vision for it, I don't think they're running around changing rules under people's feet) is a good indication they think the Talent is being misinterpreted (and, hence, is not fine as written).

Anyways, my suggestions are free for all to apply or ignore if they see fit. If Mataxes finds them useful, wonderful, happy to be of service! If he does not, no harm and no foul! I think both our opinions are well represented at this point, so not sure if there's more matter to cover (and no one is really benefiting from repeating the same an opinion over and over, nor bantering about wording).