Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

Nope not making up rules. Extrapolating from the given rules.
Rule 1) You cannot wield a weapon in the same hand as a shield. Therefore TWF with weapons means you gain no benefit from a shield.
Rule 2) If you attack with a shield you lose it’s SB until your next action. Therefore TWF with shields means you gain no benefit from a shield.

Rule 2 implies that as you attack with a shield you are moving it in a way as to not be ready to block attacks, since by attacking with it it’s still in hand and being wielded so it must be a positioning thing.

I extrapolated that the intent was that TWF wasn’t compatible with shield use. One focuses on putting all your energy into a dual attack. The other means attacking in a way that still keeps your shield in the correct position to block an attack. TWF with combinations of body parts such as kicks, head butts and elbow slams certainly doesn’t leave your shield in a good position to block.

It might not be the interpretation PCI was going for but it is not just making rules up.

As to your other questions:

1) No the dark kin wouldn’t get their shield bonus in my interpretation
2) Ss’ressen can of course use a tail braver in a TWF attack but would not benefit from their shield. They are basically turned around backwards towards their target.
3) I said they can’t use Tail Swipe as part of TWF because Trip Foe is a advanced maneuver.
4) I challenge you to show me one example of a martial artist or wrestler who uses a shield with thur techniques.

You are also free to disagree with me but refrain from making it personal Please.

John

I have to agree with Josh at least in part. I see nothing at all in the rules that says (or even hints) that a Ss’ressen can’t use his tail to attack (TWF or not) and still benefit from a shield. If the tail attack facing interfered with shield use, you would think the rule books would say so somewhere in at least one of the sections talking about tail attacks but it doesn’t.

I can see how you came to your conclusions if you are trying to impose rules consistency (at least one interpretation of it) in all situations but I think you are imposing your view of rules intent into areas where there is no evidence that it was supposed to be applied.

As I said, I’m in the middle on can you make an off-hand unarmed attack and still use your shield (as long as the off-hand isn’t a claw). I don’t see any reason you couldn’t kick and use a shield but, for simplicity, I can see disallowing it.

John I think you and I have a differnt opinon on what a rule is.

you say intrepretation of a rule, or extrapolation. I still call it a rule. It’s text that isnt in the book, and can be read in multiple ways.

It is of my opinion that in a shared campaign like CSE, that if a particular rule intreptation is allowable by the rules, then the judges have to accept it, regarless of opinion, you may not have noticed but i tend to not express opinions and I tend to not use examples to deny something.

We keep swapping back and forth between arguments, what do the rules say and what has actually happened in the real world? the rules are not meant to mimic real life exactly, or even close to exactly, and yet thats what you are basing your rules extrapolation on, what you think is possible in real life.

Here is what I base my argument on
the rules certainly do not disallow the TWF + Shield Scenario
I have given you a real life example ( now with Video)
I have given you multiple in game examples

the only other things i can present is logic definitions, and arguments on why open interpretations produce less negative play experiences.

2 asides,1 for the record I sat down today with an eye to creating a character specialized in unarmed fighting to be my special character, I have a theortical skin in the game.

2 i might actually be cross at some point if you keep making me spell interpretation

There are cases where I do feel TWF and a shield are not compatible. While unarmed could be combined with a shield I would not permit it with a two weapon rend maneuver which requires two claw attacks.

John: I’ve certainly not meant my comments to be personal. If my tone has been unclear I apologize.

With a sweep of his…

Hat

It is not a perfect argument and I’m okay being wrong. I do have a fundamental problem with saying that the rules don’t disallow something therefore it’s allowed. There have been many instances of an absence of a rule being unintentional or considered by PCI to be common sense (Wings of the Valinor spell being one example). This eventually made it as eratta. One thing I hear a lot of from PCI is to use common sense in interpreting things. Granted, what is common sense to one person might not be to another.

Agreed.

To me it violates common sense to be using unarmed martial arts with all body parts and still be protected by your shield.

Martial arts in the karate, aikido, tae kwon do etc, I agree with you. I don’t agree that unarmed attacks are limited to it.

That said, given the ambiguity around this specific rule it makes sense to clarify with the GM in advance where they fall on the question. That is unless or until there’s an official statement. Given I’m in your neck of the woods and may have you as a GM I’ll try and make sure to keep that in mind if you run for us.

With a sweep of his…

Hat

There are cases where I do feel TWF and a shield are not compatible. While unarmed could be combined with a shield I would not permit it with a two weapon rend maneuver which requires two claw attacks.

John: I’ve certainly not meant my comments to be personal. If my tone has been unclear I apologize.

With a sweep of his…

Hat

Nothing you said was taken personally.

John

Just to throw one more opinion into the mix. Personally I tend to agree more with John’s arguments. Officially, I don’t really have a “side” on this and would easily go with whatever my judge said. If I were the judge, I’d probably let it fly, but with a penalty to the attack. (I’ll explain why, below.) This is obviously (to me) a gray area where players should expect table-specific rulings and probably should not try to design a character concept around it, lest they be disappointed when they sit down with a judge who won’t let it fly at all.

Now… Why would I let the attack happen, but impose a penalty? Well, unarmed combat, in general, primarily uses hands. Sure, you’ve got maneuvers that utilize the feet, knees, elbows, head, etc. But with rare exceptions (see capoeira) the primary appendage is the arms/hands. (Even capoeira needs the arms for balance.) And if you have a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other you have generally limited your attack options. Sure, we can say that we are going to head butt, or side kick or front kick or whatever; but in combat you don’t always get to do what you “plan” to do. Now I understand that this is a game and that we need to emphasize playability over reality. But to me, if you want to perform a TWF attack and you have a weapon and a shield, you are strongly limiting your options. And although (in the absence of clear-cut rules one way or another) I’d let you do it, I’d impose a penalty on the second attack. (Probably a -2.)

Scott

while this may require some official errata to enforce, TWF + Unarmed should NOT be able to be preformed while benefiting from a shield.

I think the best way to do so would be to errata the two-weapon fighting talent.