Face it, very few (if any) of those same DMs would be objecting to the drawing/stowing if it weren't coupled by 'gaining an advantage' such as the dervish dance feat gives. You spent a feat, gear and take a disadvantage for doing so. I don't see the problem with the concept.
You take an already useful feat, pay an insubstantial amount of gold, and have no disadvantage to gain the benefit of using two styles of fighting at the same time. Sounds broken to me. And there are tons of reasons why it shouldn't work. Just pick one.
Some DMs (the good ones in my opinion) will interpret the rules as they were meant to be interpreted, and wouldn't allow loop holes and crazy exploits to give massive advantages to specific players. This game isn't about finding the biggest static bonuses you can get away with, or who can crunch cheese the loudest. And obviously the rules never intended to grant all the benefits of attacking two-handed, and all the benefits of using a shield, at the same time.
Replace quickdraw shield with any weapon.
It's not a weapon. It's not being drawn from a scabbard at your side. It goes on your back. It comes off your back.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Intended flavor has nothing to do with legality.
How might you build a mafia boss who is exceptionally good at both reading and lying to people, knows Absalom like the back of his hand, can always seem to find you but can't ever be found when he doesn't want to be?
An urban ranger with Favored Enemy (human) and Favored Community (Absalom). Completely flies in the face of the intended flavor. But it's totally legit.
You take an already useful feat, pay an insubstantial amount of gold, and have no disadvantage to gain the benefit of using two styles of fighting at the same time. Sounds broken to me.
I think you missed the part where you don't gain the benefits at the same time. If you're using DD, you can't use the shield. If you're using the shield, you can't use DD. So I guess it's not broken.
Some DMs (the good ones in my opinion) will interpret the rules as they were meant to be interpreted
Such as following James' quote above and using DD to make single weapon fighters more attractive, rather than less?
Intended flavor has nothing to do with legality.
But everything to do with role-playing, which is the core focus. Not trying to stack as many bonuses as possible on top of each other.
I think you missed the part where you don't gain the benefits at the same time. If you're using DD, you can't use the shield. If you're using the shield, you can't use DD. So I guess it's not broken.
But most of the time, you are getting the benefit simultaneously. You get the benefit of increased offence on your turn when you are offensive, and the benefit of an increased AC when it's not your turn when you're being defensive. The only thing you really miss out on is AoO defence, and AoO offence, which might come into play... never, depending on how your DM runs his monsters and what the composition of the party is.
The point being, if you look at it as a full round of benefit, you're getting all the best benefits in all the right places.
The way you guys are trying to interpret it would mean that there is almost no advantage for the typical sword-and-board fighter to not take Quickdraw (already a good feat) and a quickdraw shield. He can then fight with his sword two-handed using power attack on his turn, and get the full benefit of his shield on the enemies' turn.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Intended flavor has nothing to do with legality.But everything to do with role-playing, which is the core focus.
So trying to roleplay a different flavor than the feat was designed for is somehow wrong? I've made a fighter whose highest skill bonus was Profession (baker), I've made a druid who hates animals, I've made a rogue who isn't sneaky or opportunistic, and somehow that's poorer roleplaying than just rehashing the prepacked cliche's written into the feats/classes/etc?
I believe the term you're looking for is "creativity", not "bad roleplaying".
|
Sometimes it is really funny reading these boards. When someone posts a caster using a combination of spells that can potentially end APL + 10 encounters people rush in and say omg what creativity. Hyperbole is included.
But when someone suggests using a bunch of feats and RAW to achieve something that gives martials a tiny bit of versatility, not even extra power, you see the hordes come in and say nerf, cheese, munchkin, RAW but not RAI.
It's because melee can't have nice things.
|
For everyone obsessed with all the advantages of this rules combo, lets look at the alternative to what I'm trying:
Str 18/Dex 12 (Brawn) vs Str 12 Dex 18 (Quick)
Brawn, you wear plate mail, carry a heavy shield, and can easily get a +4 attack with 1d10+4 with a one handed weapon (you don't even need a feat if you use a Scizore). Without fancy tricks or a single feat , that's 22 AC. Downside? -8 ACP without modifications (easily brought down to -6 with darkwood shield, expensively brought down to simply -3 with mithril and darkwood). You miss out on 3 points of Reflex save, and 3 points of Initiative. Combat-wise, you miss out on Acrobatics and maybe Ride. But considering this didn't take a single feat, you can spend the three feats you'd need on improved initiative, lightning reflexes, and a skill focus.
Quick, you wear a chain shirt, carry a light quickdraw shield, and get a +1 attack with 1d6+1 with a one handed weapon. If you invest three feats or two and a bard archetype dip (Quickdraw, Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dance/Dawnflower Dervish), you now get the same +4 attack/+4 damage when you use the quickdraw shield trick, but still have a damage die two less than Brawn. Your AC is 19, but you have the +3 Reflex, +3 Initiative, and a -4 ACP (-2 with darkwood, 0 with darkwood and mithril, a small investment). You miss out on Climb and Swim by 3 points (less if you factor in ACP). If you instead go for mithril breastplate, your AC shoots up to 21, one less then Brawn, and you only have -1 ACP potentially (easily countered by a free trait). Your'e still down three feats, and do less damage and have less AC, but are better with skills, Initiative, and Reflex saves.
Now, I see how it could be abused however, when the Brawn character uses the Quickdraw feat/quickdraw shield combo to deal 1.5x his Str (but not on AoOs). They'll have one less AC by being forced to use a light quickdraw shield, and have a single feat investment to make the combo work. And yes, with a +5 shield, a single feat brings them +6 to AC while being able to use their 1d10+6 instead of 1d10+4, (to start), more with Power Attack et cetera. They are missing out on doing 2d6 damage with a greatsword, but really that's about it. That cheese/abuse/whatever-you-want-to-call it is much stronger, because you are actually doing more damage, whereas with what I am proposing you are doing less.
That is where I'd expect a GM to say, "four free actions - changing grips twice and don/stowing your shield - is too much". But with what I'm doing? I'm not really gaining much of a benefit... those three feats could have been used on way more useful things. But the flavor I wanted required them, so I took that hit. I wanted a bodyguard who could weave in and out of combat, jump across the battlefield, deflect a blade from the Society wizard's throat with a quick flash of his scimitar and his raised shield. Is it RAI? Possibly not. Is it RAW. Most likely yes. Does it let me fit the flavor of what I'm doing with very little (to no) mechanical benefit over just being brawny? Yes. And that last yes is what really matters.
|
|
If that's the case Jiggy, that's annoying. My character would have less AC and do less damage than the equivalent sword and boarder Str fighter (all else being roughly equal re-feat usage). He would just get to a high Acrobatics bonus... which most people cry is useless with how high the DCs for the checks can get. GM fiat, as limited as it is in PFS, should be used to penalize those who are breaking the system. This mechanical "optimization" isn't really all that optimized, and the majority of people seem to see it as RAW. People are trying so hard to find something wrong with the combo because they don't like it, not because it's unbalanced (other than the 1.5x Str potential that I'm not even using, and requires two extra free actions a round).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Adam Ashworth: As far as legality goes, each part of the build seems to be legal on its own. The only issue is the whole "the GM limits free actions" thing (which is itself part of the Core Rules, mind you) and what exactly that means. Some will see it as the GM deciding how many free actions you get in a turn, while others will see it as deciding which combinations of free actions you get in a turn.
As such, in the context of PFS, expect table variation.
As for the current state of the discussion in this thread, yes, it's more about personal offense than about actual legality or power level. Such is often the case on the forums.
I've followed lots of hotly-debated rules topics through to their conclusions, and among those where the final official stance was "yes, it's legal", every single one was (prior to resolution) violently opposed by people making claims about power level, abuse, and obvious intent. (Of course, not once did someone who turned out to be wrong about the "obvious intent" and whatnot ever come back and say "Gee, I was wrong; maybe I should re-evaluate my idea of the game's baseline power and general design philosophy".)
This tendency spans the entire playerbase, and therefore includes PFS as well. After all, we're only human.
|
|
RAI is wonderful but it's not rules it's interpreting the beliefs and writings of other human beings and as a result it's extremely imprecise. What I read as you can only use one hand when fighting someone else may read as you can only attack with one hand etc etc.
RAW is wonderful but the more splatbooks by different authors that use the same words but give them slightly different meaning the more it become stretched and problematic to rely on RAW alone.
Add the wonderful tendency to say "this piece of text is fluff, so it mean nothing, but that piece is an hard rule", with the choice of what is fluff and what is hard rule based on what is more convenient for the wanted result and you will see that RAW is as imprecise as RAI.
|
|
As such, in the context of PFS, expect table variation.
This is the part I take issue with. Table Variance in PFS often happens when GM's get strict with their own personal pet peeves in a vain attempt to convert the campaign to their viewpoint. That is why I will always call out any PFS GM who says "Not at my table!" As I have said before, It is not YOUR table. There is just simply no way to draw such a line in the sand in a shared campaign and not come off like an arrogant jerk.
Note: For the record I have never seen it happen. Not certain if such Bravado is exaggerated here on the forums or if I have just been lucky, but I have never actually witnessed a PFS GM say, "Not at my table."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is why I will always call out any PFS GM who says "Not at my table!" As I have said before, It is not YOUR table. There is just simply no way to draw such a line in the sand in a shared campaign and not come off like an arrogant jerk.
Joko, with all due respect, it is my table. I spent the time prepping, I spent the time organizing, and I am responsible for every player at that table (yes, including you, but not just you) having a good time. If I make a rules call at my table, including rules calls about free actions (which are covered RAW), I am not being a jerk, I am being a GM.
Nine times out of ten the cheese brought to the table does not make the table fun. I have had a number of players complain to me about builds like these. Every time (not just sometimes), these rules fall on the edge builds which skirt an RAI, or work off of a rules inconsistency. These kinds of situations cause game days to devolve into rules arguments trying to figure out what's going on and are very un-fun for everybody, especially the other players. If I am able to interject another rule to counter that kind of build and bring the table fun for the other players back into equilibrium, I am not being a jerk. What you see as me interjecting my viewpoint into the campaign, I see as me making sure the majority of players at my table are having a good time. That is, after all, my job as Venture Captain. At the end of the day, I'd rather have those five back playing again, than just the one.
I've said it time and time again. There are legitimate reasons to fall on both sides of the RAW vs. RAI spectrum, but to claim, even for a second that I'm being a jerk for trying to run a table, I'd rather not have you at my table.
This thread almost makes it seem as if some people would prefer PFS GMs to be robots, and never make their own decisions.
I would slap you with the CRB for going against the spirit of the game so brazenly.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is the part I take issue with. Table Variance in PFS often happens when GM's get strict with their own personal pet peeves in a vain attempt to convert the campaign to their viewpoint.
As such, in the context of PFS, expect table variation.
Yes, it does. And I've probably gotten myself a reputation over on the PFS boards for thrashing GMs who do that.
There's just one mistake you're making: that's not the only source of table variation. Therefore, you can't look at an instance of table variation and assume that the cause is what you describe. It might be, or it might not.
PFS follows Core Rules unless otherwise noted. If the Core Rules say "the GM decides X", and PFS hasn't specified an alternative, then that means that in PFS, the GM still decides X, just like the CRB says. In such cases you will end up with legitimate table variation.
The CRB says the GM decides "what can really be done for free". It's right there in the book, in black and white. If you want your game run by "RAW", and if you're not a hypocrite, then you want the GM to decide what can really be done for free.
Yes, a GM might abuse that rule. But they might not. And two GMs who are both NOT abusing that rule could still rule differently from each other.
Sometimes, table variation is legitimate.
It's not about whether or not it's broken. It's about offending a player's idea of how a feat "should" be used.
Yeah, right?
After reading all the knee-jerk free action limiting, I thought, "No one would bat an eye if you tried this with a Bastard Sword, cause you're not "breaking" and an already "broken" feat like Dervish Dance." Never mind using a Bastard Sword would get more damage for less feats.
On another note, I generally don't like it when a rules savvy player exploits rules to game the system (not saying the OP's build does this). I equally dislike when a GM does the exact same thing to counter a player's build. If you don't like something house-rule it. You can't do this in PFS, but you can talk to the player.
"Your build is disturbing the other player's fun, would you mind changing it?" is a bit more constructive than saying, "I think you're being a cheesy jerk, so I'm going to be a cheesy jerk right back at you."
|
|
I would like to state, that a shield is indeed a weapon.
Both light and heavy shields are listed right in the weapons section.
Want an Adamantine shield? You price it as a weapon. Can you enchant it as a weapon? Yes.
Why?
It is a weapon.
And:
shearing a weapon draw a AoO.
retrieving it from your backpack draw an AoO.
You two have it all wrong. A quickdraw shield is analogous to a weapon cord, but instead of having it dangle, you stow it on your back (not in your pack). You're essentially modifying the ready or drop a shield action, which does not provoke last time I checked.
I imagine it's something like this.
|
|
You two have it all wrong. A quickdraw shield is analogous to a weapon cord, but instead of having it dangle, you stow it on your back (not in your pack). You're essentially modifying the ready or drop a shield action, which does not provoke last time I checked.
Sheathing a weapon draw AoO
Putting away an item draw a AoO
Quickdraw shield say: "stow it on his or her back quickly"
You are stowing it away, it is not dangling from a cord attacked to your wrist.
It it was dangling from a cord linked to the wrist the OP wouldn't be capable to use Dervish Dance.
The shield isn't stowed in your backpack but it is hooked to your backpack or a harness on your back. You still need to put it away and retrieve it.
And: "If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item."
|
|
There's just one mistake you're making:
I made no such mistake. My word choice was deliberate and in no way excluded other sources of table variation.
And I think you are being disingenuous. You stated yourself that there is no RAW argument against any specific part. That some free actions take more time than others and can therefore, in combination, be disallowed. Could you please list other Free Actions combinations that you place in this category?
Simply put, you can not claim that you are citing the free action rule out of an evaluation of the time consumed when you are actually interested in shutting down a cheesy way around Dervish Dancers having to keep a hand free.
That is Meta GMing. You are establishing the desired result and then trying to find a rule that will allow you to justify it. A GM should evaluate the rules first and then make a reasonable decision.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
For some reason you are claiming the reasonable limits equate to the GM can do whatever they want.
If a particular issue comes up repeatedly or causes a
significant problem in one of your games, please raise
any questions or concerns on the Pathfinder Society
Messageboards at paizo.com/pathfindersociety, and
the campaign management staff or the Pathfinder
Roleplaying Game development team will work to provide
you with an answer to avoid confusion in the future.
This is the proper recourse for a PFS GM. Not to hide draw a line in the sand and call that reasonable.
|
|
@ Jiggy: Thank you for being the voice of reason. It doesn't seem as if you are saying, "GMs should allow it," but are instead saying, "They get to choose, and it's OK either way." Almost everyone else seems to be in the either-or camp (including myself at times). It's refreshing to read a balanced viewpoint. We are all human, indeed.
I want GMs to have the power to nerf overpowered combinations, and not just be RAW robots. But I also want them to be willing to try something first, and make an educated decision and not just an impulsive "that's cheesy, I ban it" . From what I'm reading here, I really can't count on that in PFS - it could go either way.
But the terrorists win, I give up. I don't want to have to abandon my character because a few GMs decide that it's cheesy and don't want it at their tables. The amount of hostility I've seen in this thread alone makes it not worth it. I'll switch to something else that isn't so controversial. I am glad I checked first, it would have been disappointing to have to create a new character because of a choice like this that GMs might ban as being cheesy just because I'm trying to stay competitive in a non-optimal build. I do appreciate everyone's feedback.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you are actually interested in shutting down a cheesy way around Dervish Dancers having to keep a hand free.
What if I told you I'm not interested in shutting it down and don't think it's cheesy?
That is Meta GMing. You are establishing the desired result and then trying to find a rule that will allow you to justify it. A GM should evaluate the rules first and then make a reasonable decision.
You're meta-foruming. You are establishing what you assume my stance and motives are and then interpreting/ignoring my words as necessary to allow you to justify it. A forumite should evaluate posts first and then make a reasonable decision of what the poster is actually saying.
|
|
Joko, with all due respect, it is my table. I spent the time prepping, I spent the time organizing, and I am responsible for every player at that table (yes, including you, but not just you) having a good time. If I make a rules call at my table, including rules calls about free actions (which are covered RAW), I am not being a jerk, I am being a GM.
Nine times out of ten the cheese brought to the table does not make the table fun. I have had a number of players complain to me about builds like these. Every time (not just sometimes), these rules fall on the edge builds which skirt an RAI, or work off of a rules inconsistency. These kinds of situations cause game days to devolve into rules arguments trying to figure out what's going on and are very un-fun for everybody, especially the other players. If I am able to interject another rule to counter that kind of build and bring the table fun for the other players back into equilibrium, I am not being a jerk. What you see as me interjecting my viewpoint into the campaign, I see as me making sure the majority of players at my table are having a good time. That is, after all, my job as Venture Captain. At the end of the day, I'd rather have those five back playing again, than just the one.
I've said it time and time again. There are legitimate reasons to fall on both sides of the RAW vs. RAI spectrum, but to claim, even for a second that I'm being a jerk for trying to run a table, I'd rather not have you at my table.
You are also being disingenuous. You can not claim that this situation caused game delays as it did not happen in a game. If you made this decision "on the fly" in order to keep a game moving I would not chastise you for doing so. You should, in such situations, realize that mistakes can be made and try to research, learn and if needed correct your decision.
If you truly think such builds are becoming a problem in PFS then you should endeavour to get the leadership to do something official about them. It is arrogant to try and correct it on your own.
For the record, I agree with you that builds are getting a little out of hand and would like to see something done as well. I had hoped it would be a topic at a Members meeting at Gencon, but alas no meeting will take place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if I told you I'm not interested in shutting it down and don't think it's cheesy?
Begging the question much? Either claim that is the case or not.
You're meta-foruming. You are establishing what you assume my stance and motives are and then interpreting/ignoring my words as necessary to allow you to justify it. A forumite should evaluate posts first and then make a reasonable decision of what the poster is actually saying.
I will grant this is possible. A review of the thread leads to to believe that I may have amalgamated other views into my responses with you. It was not intentional. That does not mean that I may not be right for the wrong reasons. Are you claiming my assumptions were false?
Generally speaking, forums are a poor medium for conveying intention and motives.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I haven't actually decided what I think of the Dervish Dance/Quickdraw Shield thing. My main thing is that sometimes GM fiat is against the rules, and sometimes GM fiat is called for by the rules.
In the case of free actions, there is a limit to them, and that limit is determined by the GM according to the rules. Whether that limit is strictly a number, or extends to certain combinations of free actions (for instance, allowing a PC to speak, drop an item from each hand, cease concentration on a spell, and drop prone - which is five free actions - but disallowing other, more cumbersome combinations) is not entirely clear (I don't know what I think is correct yet).
Some will inappropriately ban the Dervish thing because they don't like it and use the free action limit rule as an excuse. Others will already have a stance on that rule and ban the Dervish thing as a result. All I want from you, Joko PO, is to slow down in your eagerness to assume the former and be more ready to consider to possibility of the latter.
You two have it all wrong. A quickdraw shield is analogous to a weapon cord, but instead of having it dangle, you stow it on your back (not in your pack). You're essentially modifying the ready or drop a shield action, which does not provoke last time I checked.Sheathing a weapon draw AoO
Putting away an item draw a AoO
Quickdraw shield say: "stow it on his or her back quickly"
You are stowing it away, it is not dangling from a cord attacked to your wrist.
It it was dangling from a cord linked to the wrist the OP wouldn't be capable to use Dervish Dance.The shield isn't stowed in your backpack but it is hooked to your backpack or a harness on your back. You still need to put it away and retrieve it.
And: "If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item."
I can't fathom a reason one would want to "sheathe" a shield, nor can I picture what a shield sheath would look like.
If your shield is in your backpack, then retrieving it would provoke, if it's merely slung over your shoulder or back, "readying" a shield does not provoke according to RAW nor does "dropping" a shield, which, according to the RAW description, includes unstrapping it.
Where does it say a stowed shield is hooked to your back pack? Also, what exactly does the Ready a Shield action do? Where would an un-readied shield have to be be able to strap it to your arm?
Also just noticed this:
Quickdraw Shields state they can be donned or put away as a swift action as part of a regular move, but you can already ready or drop any shield as a free action as part of a regular move. What the heck is the difference between "Don" and "Ready"?
|
|
If you truly think such builds are becoming a problem in PFS then you should endeavour to get the leadership to do something official about them. It is arrogant to try and correct it on your own.
*sigh* I've said it twice, but I'll be clear...
I am the Venture Captain for the fine state of Minnesota (Jiggy is in fact a player in my region). I *am* in a leadership position. I *do* talk to leadership. I spent a lot of time trying to keep players and make players happy.
It's not arrogant of me to try to correct things, it's part of my job.
For the record, I agree with you that builds are getting a little out of hand and would like to see something done as well. I had hoped it would be a topic at a Members meeting at Gencon, but alas no meeting will take place.
There's a long story about this. But tell you what. Find Mike Brock, find somebody in a red shirt. Talk to them. We're here to listen about the campaign.
|
|
I think I shall depart this thread so as not to mourn the loss of the character I had envisioned. in case anyone wants to make my poor beleaguered build happen in some game, it's below. Its claim to fame is the +8(+shield enhancement bonus) to AC it can grant an ally. It has the Helpful trait/Bodyguard synergy up to 5 attacks per round, the Enforcer/Blade of Mercy synergy to debuff, the Quickdraw/Quickdraw shield/Saving Shield/Covering Defense synergy, the Improved Crit/Critical Focus/Butterfly's Sting synergy, and +2 attack/damage to the party through Freebooter's Bane and +4 flanking bonus through Freebooter's Bond... a supporter, not a damage dealer or an unhittable target. A slightly less tricked out version of him will continue, but here was my dream! Someday I'll build a paladin that can do this better, and won't be Dex based so people will leave him alone.
Dawnflower Dervish
1st level: Bard 1 (Combat Reflexes, Bodyguard, Dervish Dance, Battle Dance)
Freebooter Ranger (FC)
2nd level: Ranger 1 (Freebooter's Bane +1*, Track*, Wild Empathy*)
3rd level: Ranger 2 (Enforcer, Two-Weapon Combat Style - Quick Draw)
4th level: Ranger 3 (Endurance*, Favored Terrain - Underground) +1 Dex
5th level: Ranger 4 (Saving Shield, Freebooter's Bond*)
6th level: Ranger 5 (Freebooter's Bane +2*)
Lore Warden Fighter
7th level: Fighter 1 (Shield Focus, Covering Defense`, Scholastic*)
8th level: Fighter 2 (Butterfly's Sting`, Expertise*)
9th level: Fighter 3 (Improved Critical-Scimitar, Maneuver Mastery*)
10th level: Fighter 4 (Critical Focus`)
11th level: Fighter 5 (In Harm's Way, Weapon Training-Heavy Blades*)
12th level: Fighter 6 (Sickening Critical`)
|
|
@James: Unfortunately, I don't get to choose what GMs I get in my local games, and not so much in convention games either. Enough people have said that my combination is a negative thing, that I figure I do this to have fun and I want everyone I play with to have fun too - no harm in toning down my build to facilitate that.
@gnomersy: I would request that this thread not devolve into name calling. Someone having a personal opinion that it is OK to judge the free action usage differently than how you yourself doesn't make them a jerk. They just have a definate way they perceive the rules and the game, and it's okay to dissent. Just don't play in their games if it's too much of a problem, but respecting varying viewpoints hurts no one, whereas reducing yourself to put someone down to elevate your point does hurt. Yeah, I realize this is a forum, but it's supposed to be a civil one... as much as internet anonymity can be civil.
LOL, man this is a joke. I'd let the dude have his cheezy AC bonus (because let's be honest it is cheese) and then watch him die quick due to over exposure to attack of opportunities.
It's actually pretty cool but I admit, it's rule-bending that's "legal" and anyone who is saying this is not against RAI is lying to themselves and probably a powergamer/cheezer/optimizer(excessive)/etc.
I respect the initiative but cut it out bro, you're better than that LOL
|
|
Where does it say a stowed shield is hooked to your back pack? Also, what exactly does the Ready a Shield action do? Where would an un-readied shield have to be be able to strap it to your arm?
Also just noticed this:
Quickdraw Shields state they can be donned or put away as a swift action as part of a regular move, but you can already ready or drop any shield as a free action as part of a regular move. What the heck is the difference between "Don" and "Ready"?
I already pointed out what I think is the difference between don and ready, but maybe it is worth expanding on that:
AFAIK you don't transport your shield [bucklers are an exception] on the march strapped on your forearm and ready to use. That would tire your arm uselessly.
As you said you transport them on your shoulder or hooked to your backpack or to your saddle.
If the shield is on your shoulder it is still encumbering your arm but the weight is better distributed for transportation. Moving the shield from the shoulder to the arm and gripping the handle with your hand is readying it.
Another situation in which you can need to ready a shield (mostly for a large shield) happen when you use your shield hand for something, so releasing the shield strap. Both the light and the heavy shield descriptions say: "You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand.". So re-gripping the shield is readying it. As long long as you don't grip the handle you are wearing it but it isn't ready and you don't benefit from it.
Two examples of that situation:
- you have a heavy shield and a weapon, you want to drink a potion but you don't want to drop your weapon:
a) release the shield grip (free action)
b) draw a potion (move action)
c) drink the potion (standard)
next round
d) ready the shield as part of your move action (and in this instance, readying a quickdraw shield will be a swift or free action that don't provoke and can be done in the same round in which you draw the potion).
- you have a light shield and a weapon, you want to use a wand but you don't want to drop your weapon. You already have the wand in your shield hand. (You can hold a item in the light shield hand but you can't use a weapon, my opinion is that you can't use a wand too.)
a) release the shield grip (free action)
b) use the wand (standard action)
c) ready the shield as part of your move action while keeping your wand in hand (and in this instance, readying a quickdraw shield will be a swift or free action that don't provoke).
Don and stow a shield.
A stowed shield is on your back or backpack, so in a position that isn't easily accessible. In this situation you don't need simply to let it slip a few centimetres along your arm and grip the handle but you need to bend your arm backward, grab a fairly heavy object and move in in position.
So you fall under "Retrieve a stored item" and provoke. Normally it is a move action but the special form of the quickdraw shield allow you to draw it more speedy. That don't negate the AoO.
Same thing in reverse for stowing it away. The OP want a free arm to use Dervish dance (the feat actually speak of hand, but it say that you can't be carrying a shield), so he is not simply unreadying a shield, but he is stowing it away. Normally that would be a move action. As the quickdraw shield allow him to stow the shield as a swift or free action he can do that every round, but he still provoke an AoO as stowing away an item provoke.
That is my opinion on the difference of readying and donning a shield.
* The shield hooked to your saddle is in a strange situation. It is in easy reach to grab it and use it, so I would rule that putting it in use will fall under the readying rule.
On the other hand, if you want to remove the shield from your arm and hook it to the saddle without the risk of having it falling thanks to the horse motion you need to be more careful, so hooking it to the saddle would fall under the "stowing away" rule. YMMV.
** [Edit] Gilgimesh post reminded me about the armor check penalty: if the shield is ready on your arm you would be suffering from it, if the shield it in a transport position (shoulder, back, backpack) you would use only the weight of the item.
|
|
But the terrorists win, I give up. I don't want to have to abandon my character because a few GMs decide that it's cheesy and don't want it at their tables. The amount of hostility I've seen in this thread alone makes it not worth it. I'll switch to something else that isn't so controversial. I am glad I checked first, it would have been disappointing to have to create a new character because of a choice like this that GMs might ban as being cheesy just because I'm trying to stay competitive in a non-optimal build. I do appreciate everyone's feedback.
The problem of your build is that most GM will have to rule on the spot, they will not have the time to check half a ton of rules to see what are your limits within the rules, and they will not have the benefit of discussing the problem with other people on the board.
My initial reaction was extremely negative (and I still don't like your build as it, from an aesthetic point of view, is awful [really, hook shield to backpack, slash/slash/slash/slash/slash, unhook shield, parry with shield]) but I had the time to read the rules and it respect the RAW of the rules, so it can be used.
On the other hand having the time to peruse the rules I noticed the stow/retrieve AoO problem and I think it is a nice counter balance to what you do. You get to benefit from the shield when off turn, but at the cost of a AoO (that often can be avoided using the 5' move).
A GM at a convention will not have the time to check all the relevant rules. And if he take the time the whole table will have to wait for him to decide about your build. That is the main reason why your build is problematic.
Reading the dervish dance limit: "You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand." probably you can even get it to work without stowing the shield away.
It say "free hand" and "carrying a .... shield in your off-hand", not on your off arm. So probably you only need to ready/unready the shield, something that don't provoke.
Present your build that way, point to the exact phrase in Dervish dance feat and probably your build will be accepted without problem by most GM.
It can be fluffed more easily: "when I am attacking I need to change my stance on the shield so I lose its benefit for a few moments".
|
|
The free action problem:
from my point of view part of the problem with the multiple free actions is that some kind of free action "build" on itself, while other work well with other free actions.
To explain what I mean, the stow shield/fight/don shield manoeuvre require you to use several actions in sequence: free action stowing the shield, all your attacks, then retrieving the shield.
A sequence of drop concentration, drop an item, speak, drop to the floor include wildly different actions that don't interfere with each other, so you can use them together with no trouble.
What make the shield trick even more disagreeable in the eyes of someone is that, if you look to the rounds as a seamless sequence of actions and not as a tactical game with rounds, you are constantly putting away and retrieving the shield, so your free actions appear as a flurry of putting away shield/retrieve/put away/retrieve/ecc.
|
|
By RAW, it is somewhat ambiguous that you need two move actions to don and ready. As far as I can tell, most interpretations say that those are synonymous terms, where a move action is all it takes to have your shield from where it lies on your back to being usable in your hands. And then with the AoO for slapping the shield back on your back... enh, there's too much room for fighting about it. I'll take the easy way out, and do as I said - abandon the plan. This sort of thing would only work in home games reliably, if carefully evaluated as to the ramifications to the particular campaign and player makeup. I see no reason to subject myself to the shield-using feasibility of my character being questioned everytime I get a new GM. No thank you, I'll play RAI and save shield use for the burly types.
|
|
By RAW, it is somewhat ambiguous that you need two move actions to don and ready. As far as I can tell, most interpretations say that those are synonymous terms, where a move action is all it takes to have your shield from where it lies on your back to being usable in your hands. And then with the AoO for slapping the shield back on your back... enh, there's too much room for fighting about it. I'll take the easy way out, and do as I said - abandon the plan. This sort of thing would only work in home games reliably, if carefully evaluated as to the ramifications to the particular campaign and player makeup. I see no reason to subject myself to the shield-using feasibility of my character being questioned everytime I get a new GM. No thank you, I'll play RAI and save shield use for the burly types.
It is not what I have said. You need a action to retrieve the shield from its transport position on the back/backpack.
|
By RAW, it is somewhat ambiguous that you need two move actions to don and ready. As far as I can tell, most interpretations say that those are synonymous terms, where a move action is all it takes to have your shield from where it lies on your back to being usable in your hands. And then with the AoO for slapping the shield back on your back... enh, there's too much room for fighting about it. I'll take the easy way out, and do as I said - abandon the plan. This sort of thing would only work in home games reliably, if carefully evaluated as to the ramifications to the particular campaign and player makeup. I see no reason to subject myself to the shield-using feasibility of my character being questioned everytime I get a new GM. No thank you, I'll play RAI and save shield use for the burly types.
I know it is harsh all the drama that can come about in a game designed for everyone to work together and succeed. You just wanted to have fun with your concept (reminds me of Achilles in the movie Troy) and the people hate it because it is different. I still reccomend if it is the mechanical side of the fence you are after and not the flavor side just to wield a Wakazashi or Rapier with finesse (same damage and threat range as scimitar) and then slap Agile on it ASAP to bump up your DPS (Same effect as Dervish). If you use a Masterwork buckler or better you do not even get a penalty to attack rolls from Weapon Finesse because there is no Armor Check Penalty to apply to them. That is my 2 cents I hope everything works out for you.