| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says in the feat that you suffer no penalties. Iterative attacks aren't penalties, so you that's going to be the same, but this feat says that you don't worry about power attack, combat expertise etc when you make an attack roll involving such penalties with your shield.
This is true, correct?
|
By pure technicality, yes. It is meant to only apply to TWFing I believe, due to how the feat is worded, but technically be dual-wielding heavy shields while fighting defensively, power attacking, combat expertising, with 19 negative levels being sickened and shaken on top of having broken shields and still take no penalty.
That said, it is the kinda thing that GM's would be allowed to say no to in PFS, and in a homegame the GM would probably say no and possibly smack you upside the head for trying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's happening in pfs. IT'S HAPPENING!
|
|
Oh, it's happening in pfs. IT'S HAPPENING!
Except that there is a clause in the Guide to Organized Play that says that GMs are allowed to use common sense to dictate that a certain thing doesn't work, as long as there is not a specific rule that they are overriding. So an experienced GM will tell you that you will take the penalties for all but TWFing, as you should.
I agree it's crazy, but raw says that it's a thing. I was just worried about my character currently in pfs in terms of surprising gm's when it happens. I know it's cheese, but I'm going to let loose this once.
They're not going to let you let lose. As soon as they discover what you're doing they are going to tell you no.
Just don't do it.
|
|
As a Pathfinder SOciety GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
To translate, it says that GM's can use common sense as long as they aren't directly breaking rules. This is disallowing a cheesy, rules-lawyered, loophole, not breaking a rule.
Just to be clear. Plain as day raw isn't a rules lawyered loophole in anyway, especially when reading this feat. RAI is others saying "I'm pretty sure this is restricted to twf penalties." No rules would be broken to do it the way I wrote, and if you restricted it, then that is the breaking the rules.
|
|
Just to be clear. Plain as day raw isn't a rules lawyered loophole in anyway, especially when reading this feat. RAI is others saying "I'm pretty sure this is restricted to twf penalties." No rules would be broken to do it the way I wrote, and if you restricted it, then that is the breaking the rules.
Pretty sure every GM I know would view the text as vague and assume that due to the implication of dual-wielding {"when wielding another weapon"}, the feat would mean that you only remove dual-wielding penalties. And would view the 19 Neg Level Dual-Wield Combat Expertise Power Attack Fight Defensive Shaken Sickened No Penalty version as a loophole, and not "Plain-As-Day-RAW". That said, if the GM's are all more lenient in your area, and you feel the character would not detract from anyone's[and this includes the GM] fun, then go for it.
Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
you need to wield another weapon, then you have absolutely no penalties. It's clear as day. You however, are interpreting, while I'm reading.
As stated above, if the PFS GM allows it, go for it.
You'll be told no.
If you insist, you'll be asked to leave the table.
This game is about everyone having fun, not just you.
In hopes that a Dev sees this and thinks that it is completely broken and needs fixing, I'm going to FAQ this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't enjoy people saying things are wrong when they're not. Again, I understand how it's pretty nuts, and I completely agree with looking into other people's fun, so if it people rather me not, then I'd consider it when selecting a character at the table.
No, were telling you people aren't stupid robots and no one with an ounce of common sense will allow you to do this.
I can sincerely justify the raw, because I imagine they never expected people using a shield as a main weapon. You power attack with a long sword, and use that shield to bash without it being awful. Captain America said hello and people mained the shield. Thus history was made!
|
|
you need to wield another weapon, then you have absolutely no penalties. It's clear as day. You however, are interpreting, while I'm reading.Shield Master (Combat)
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
1:I'm saying that the feat is poorly written and RAI seems to clearly be Plain-As-Day, that the penalties only apply to TWFing, due to the fact that it refers to wielding 2 weapons [a shield and another], and that Two-Weapon Fighting is a prerequisite. This has come up before, and I actually asked people I knew including my local PFS Venture Lieutenant and all of them agreed that this was how the feat should be interpreted. Now, is this Strict, Rules-As-Written? No. But it is what is commonly viewed as the most sane view on the subject.
2:Interpreting is a fundamental part of reading and understanding any set of rules or restrictions. Saying that one should read and not interpret holds as much merit as saying one should inhale but not exhale. It won't get you very far and you will find it rather difficult to do so very long consciously. There are words and phrases that mean different things depending on the context they are used int. You must interpret them to determine the intent of any set of text that you wish to understand. We are both reading and interpreting the Shield Master feat. I am merely interpreting it in a different, less overpowered way.
That said, by all means make this Shield Master character and attempt to use the interpretation that you should be ignoring literally all penalties. If you feel that it is going to be a fun character to play, and a character who brings fun to the table for everyone, not just you, then who am I to say it is something you should not do. But expect people to react by either asking you to only ignore TWF penalties, and expect some people to ask you to leave the table if you refuse to. It still won't come online until late game in PFS anyway, and perhaps you have a lot of PFS GMs who think the same as you on the matter.
You should save your insulting sighs for someone else. I've expressed that I'm aware about interpretation, and others having fun. I'm not debating interpretation, and it seems many people get mad at me through their own accord. I use the rules forum to be objective and fair, and a discussion on interpretation is fine, and house rules too, but I'm talking strict rules. I don't agree with a lot of stuff with how it actually exist in the game, and wish for corrections, but when it's not fixed/changed, then you can't just ignore and override.
The feat absolutely says what I've pointed out, and I'm not interpreting anything. I do think it's crazy, but that doesn't mean I can just lie and say it doesn't say that. You need twf for other shield feats, and that's awful. They just assume if you're using a shield that you're doing it in a traditional way, and not solo shield.
Interpretation is dangerous, because it's obviously subjective, and you cannot be assured you have all the correct information to get the absolute best answer. I don't waste people's time with the possibility of being wrong if I can help it. Regardless if it's I'm my favor I argue and support the rules.
|
|
You should save your insulting sighs for someone else. I've expressed that I'm aware about interpretation, and others having fun. I'm not debating interpretation, and it seems many people get mad at me through their own accord. I use the rules forum to be objective and fair, and a discussion on interpretation is fine, and house rules too, but I'm talking strict rules. I don't agree with a lot of stuff with how it actually exist in the game, and wish for corrections, but when it's not fixed/changed, then you can't just ignore and override.
I meant no insult through my E-sigh, and apologize that that is how it was read. Internet Text Medium is difficult to manage. My sigh was just intended to express minor irritation at the fact that this feat has gone so long without FAQ/Errata making it both RAW clear and RAI clear.
As I said in my post, it isn't clear-plain-as-day-RAW that absolutely all penalties are ignored. In fact, I said that many have read the feat and thought that it only applied to TWF. So I feel it deserves an FAQ/Errata/Developer Input to clarify the intent of the feat or change/clarify the mechanics. In fact, I made a thread on the matter here.
The problem is when your core argument is using an absurd example (ignoring...-30 to hit?) Then it makes for a poor arfument. Given that I doubt anyone plays that way you'll be arguing along time.
Mojo, my argument is just reading the feat. Yes, it's messed up, and clearly a major goof happened. Those are the rules though. I have to give no argument other than that. If a gm goes nuts, then it's time to compromise, because I'm not a jerk, but at the same time, I'm absolutely right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules as intended are the rules as well.
Hell to the no.
Theres an old FAQ about it that reads
Shield Mastery
Q: Does the magical shield bonus apply to Shield Mastery?
A: (Jason Bulmahn) I am going to try and clarify this in a future errata. The intent here was to add the shields base bonus as an enhancement bonus (that is, +1 for light shields, +2 for heavy). Shield Focus does NOT increase the value. [Source]
Q: Does Shield Mastery remove the penalties for all attacks if you are using a non-shield weapon and a shield and two-weapon fighting? Or does it only remove the penalties for the shield attack?
A: Shield Mastery only removes the penalty for Two Weapon Fighting on the Shield Bash itself, it does not remove it for a non-Shield weapon in your other hand.
Shield master was erratad and the FAQ was removed, but you can see the clarification there.
PFS is not nearly as RAW as you seem to think. Hell, the rules themselves aren't nearly that strict.
So your Saying you dont like the Faq so you ignore it?. You have no issue with a lvl 6 ranger going "i declair attacking defensively, combat expertise power attack" and geting ... +8 to ac(not including the shield) andignoring Power attack penalties and you see no issues with that? yes totally working as intended.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah you're right, you can use combat expertise to the offhand shield without penalty, your primary attack will of course suffer the full penalties etc...
also you have to be at least lvl 11 to get and use this feat.
If you want to devote
two weapon fighting
Improved Shield Bash
Shield Slam
Combat Expertise
Power attack
So that you can power attack and use combat expertise without penalty on your shield bash, go for it...
You'll only get half your power attack bonus with the bash, unless it's your only mode of attack...
For someone at lvl 11 (presumably a fighter) you could be doing something way more impressive with your attack actions that mediocre dmg and low crit range.
Show up at my table and try to do this. I can't imagine any PFS GM would let the feat work like that.
If the faq was removed then it doesn't apply? it seems shield master should do what it says.
You guys saying it obviously just removes twf, why isn't it obvious it just removes combat expertise and twf still applies. Why doesn't it just remove power attack penalties?
I Gm pfs and I allow this because I believe it does what it says.
The FAQ is gone but the clarification of intent remains (if it were ever needed)
You guys saying it obviously just removes twf, why isn't it obvious it just removes combat expertise and twf still applies. Why doesn't it just remove power attack penalties?
Because its a feat to make you two weapon fight better with a shield, not a feat for power attack.
Because two weapon Fighting with a shield comes with off hand fighting penalties, and this requires two weapon fighting as a pre requisite.
The benefit only applies while you are wielding another weapon in the other hand. Why on earth would it be easier to swing a shield if you're cursed, upside down, and level drained AND have a sword in your other hand than if you're just cursed upside down and level drained?
level 6 ranger with one of the combat styles can get it.
I wanted to avoid going nuts on interpreting and justifying things, because it is pretty simple to just read something and understand it for what it's saying, at least in my opinion.
As mentioned before, interpretation is subjective, and people seem to not look at the big picture of things when they explore this avenue. This feat can be exploited, but what I interpret as the original intent was to give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff and getting a reward at a BAB +11. Yes, there are short cuts, but that's not my fault, and people using that to support their argument because of how stupid the exploitation of the feat is, doesn't matter when it comes down to the fact of what is written. I wish my experience on the boards would be more fair minded and not drift over to just arguing interpretation on something so clear, when we're in the rules section.
I click link and read "unofficial FAQ", and how they write they intend to add it to the future erratta. Well, it never happened. Maybe someone goof'd before, and thus it was never added? I don't know for certain, and no one else here does, so it isn't official, and it was never added, so it can't fly. You can take that into your home game, and use it for guidance I suppose, but I sure as hell know that if I tried to argue something that seemed crazy, that I'd get a song and dance about it.
Again, I recognize crazy stuff, but I live a life where I try and be objective and fair. How can any progress be made when people post in a rules forum with misinformation based on their subjective view points, and not the facts? Admit this is what it says, and move on, and if you desire include your interpretations. I don't care what your buddy thought when he read it, because I can use my imagination and quickly figure out that they looked at the pre-reqs and other things and just justified their interpretation, and ignored the facts.
I wanted to avoid going nuts on interpreting and justifying things, because it is pretty simple to just read something and understand it for what it's saying, at least in my opinion.
As mentioned before, interpretation is subjective, and people seem to not look at the big picture of things when they explore this avenue. This feat can be exploited, but what I interpret as the original intent was to give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff and getting a reward at a BAB +11. Yes, there are short cuts, but that's not my fault, and people using that to support their argument because of how stupid the exploitation of the feat is, doesn't matter when it comes down to the fact of what is written. I wish my experience on the boards would be more fair minded and not drift over to just arguing interpretation on something so clear, when we're in the rules section.
I click link and read "unofficial FAQ", and how they write they intend to add it to the future erratta. Well, it never happened. Maybe someone goof'd before, and thus it was never added? I don't know for certain, and no one else here does, so it isn't official, and it was never added, so it can't fly. You can take that into your home game, and use it for guidance I suppose, but I sure as hell know that if I tried to argue something that seemed crazy, that I'd get a song and dance about it.
Again, I recognize crazy stuff, but I live a life where I try and be objective and fair. How can any progress be made when people post in a rules forum with misinformation based on their subjective view points, and not the facts? Admit this is what it says, and move on, and if you desire include your interpretations. I don't care what your buddy thought when he read it, because I can use my imagination and quickly figure out that they looked at the pre-reqs and other things and just justified their interpretation, and ignored the facts.
It only works that way if the GM says it does. Don't count on that happening though, unless you are the GM.
|
|
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
No problems with you doing this, your primary attack (that other weapon you're wielding) is going to be penalized all to hell.
To re-iterate it's a feat that is only beneficial when you are two weapon fighting. Your other weapon will be suffering the penalties for TWF, PA, CE, and potentially size etc.
Even if you decided to be so shield focused that it was primary attack et, your off hand still would have virtually zero chance of doing meaningful damage.
I don't think any GM will actually punish you for bringing this to the table... Because you won't be a threat to the enemy to bother hitting.
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Okay, so I just read this is designed to make your twf better... Like that's it? There is nothing else to imagine beyond just a bunch of feats just for twf?
Quickly Combat Expertise comes to mind. So, using the logic of just looking at pre-reqs and just stating things as fact, could anyone tell me why I need an inelegance of 13 and combat expertise for so many things? Are these feats made just to make combat expertise better? Using this type of argument is terrible in my opinion.
Interpretation from me on what happened here was they wanted to give people who sword and board something cool to have. I'm thinking that the idea of someone going main weapon shield was beyond them, but when you off-hand and one hand your weapon on a twf, you are getting the crap end of the stick, so here is shield master, and now you are going to mess people up.
Again, I didn't design that ranger feat selection to bypass stuff, which I admit is kinda whack, but please consider the tax you must take to get it as a ranger. You don't even need to get twf to grab it too! Isn't that odd? Two weapon fighting support and all, and they'll let you just have it without it? A monk can bypass the int 13 and combat expertise too. That's weird, huh?
Edited
Well if you're playing a game by the rules, then expect it to work. If you're in a home game, then rule it how you like. Telling me that this isn't the rules is you saying "How did I get on the rules section of the boards?"
Please, keep your "how I'd run it" and other interpretations apart from the facts. I understand peoples fears with not appreciating the feat in the big picture, but that doesn't change the facts from being facts.
I wanted to avoid going nuts on interpreting and justifying things, because it is pretty simple to just read something and understand it for what it's saying, at least in my opinion.
As mentioned before, interpretation is subjective, and people seem to not look at the big picture of things when they explore this avenue. This feat can be exploited, but what I interpret as the original intent was to give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff and getting a reward at a BAB +11. Yes, there are short cuts, but that's not my fault, and people using that to support their argument because of how stupid the exploitation of the feat is, doesn't matter when it comes down to the fact of what is written. I wish my experience on the boards would be more fair minded and not drift over to just arguing interpretation on something so clear, when we're in the rules section.
I click link and read "unofficial FAQ", and how they write they intend to add it to the future erratta. Well, it never happened. Maybe someone goof'd before, and thus it was never added? I don't know for certain, and no one else here does, so it isn't official, and it was never added, so it can't fly. You can take that into your home game, and use it for guidance I suppose, but I sure as hell know that if I tried to argue something that seemed crazy, that I'd get a song and dance about it.
Again, I recognize crazy stuff, but I live a life where I try and be objective and fair. How can any progress be made when people post in a rules forum with misinformation based on their subjective view points, and not the facts? Admit this is what it says, and move on, and if you desire include your interpretations. I don't care what your buddy thought when he read it, because I can use my imagination and quickly figure out that they looked at the pre-reqs and other things and just justified their interpretation, and ignored the facts.
Im not sure where progress has to be made. What i am basically telling you is that. If 99% of the people view te feat as working 1 way without ever talking to eachother.
and 1% of the population read it a second way
and further more, the people who publish the game have said they expect it to work the way that the majority of people view it then It is probably safe to assume it was intended to be run that way.
Being able to attack with no offhand TWF penalty and geting your +5 weapon for 25k (or 12 thousand if you can make it yourself) gold is an AWESOME feat at lvl 11 and even better at lvl 6.
At the end of the day all this has been hashed out ad nausium before. there are numerous previous threads on it.
I guess I'm the 1% of people that reads things for what they actually say then. That 99% you listed worries me a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wanted to avoid going nuts on interpreting and justifying things, because it is pretty simple to just read something and understand it for what it's saying, at least in my opinion.
And after even your brief stint in the rules forums you can say that with a strait face?
It is definitely not a simple matter. You can see hundreds of pages of arguments, semantic disagreements, and developer clarification ( and developers clarifying your clarification).
This is english. Not calculus.
As mentioned before, interpretation is subjective, and people seem to not look at the big picture of things when they explore this avenue. This feat can be exploited, but what I interpret as the original intent was to give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff and getting a reward at a BAB +11. Yes, there are short cuts, but that's not my fault, and people using that to support their argument because of how stupid the exploitation of the feat is, doesn't matter when it comes down to the fact of what is written. I wish my experience on the boards would be more fair minded and not drift over to just arguing interpretation on something so clear, when we're in the rules section.
The definition of objective is not the position you agree with. The definition of fair is not the ruling most beneficial to you. The definition of fact is not something that supports your position.
You said it yourself, you try to understand the rule for what it's saying. When it says "any penalties" its saying [any of the penalties for two weapon fighting] not [any penalties you might have from anything ever]
You yourself are using a lot of subjective criteria
what I interpret as the original intent
give people a break for investing tons of stupid stuff (game balance)
You can take that into your home game, and use it for guidance I suppose, but I sure as hell know that if I tried to argue something that seemed crazy, that I'd get a song and dance about it.
Would you prefer I start howling now?
How can any progress be made when people post in a rules forum with misinformation based on their subjective view points, and not the facts?
Those aren't as mutually exclusive as you'd like to think. Yes, there is a point where subjectivity turns into an excuse to be crazy. This isn't it.
Trying to beat PFS dms over the head with RAW isn't going to work.
|
|
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.Okay, so I just read this is designed to make your twf better... Like that's it? There is nothing else to imagine beyond just a bunch of feats just for twf?
Quickly Combat Expertise comes to mind. So, using the logic of just looking at pre-reqs and just stating things as fact, could anyone tell me why I need an inelegance of 13 and combat expertise for so many things? Is it because it's to make combat expertise better? Using this type of argument is terrible in my opinion.
Interpretation from me on what happened here was they wanted to give people who sword and board something cool to have. I'm thinking that the idea of someone going main weapon shield was beyond them, but when you off-hand and one hand your weapon on a twf, you are getting the crap end of the stick, so here is shield master, and now you are going to mess people up.
I read it as a feat designed to make fighting with both a Sword and a Shield be better. The flavor and mechanics of the feat support this, by letting you attack with Sword and Shield, in addition to letting you get the Shield at no attack penalty from TWF and getting the magical weapon enchantment at 1/2 price.
Combat Expertise seems to make fighting intelligently better [it doesn't but that is the intent I take from it]. Combat Maneuvers are intelligent tactics[if they work], so it makes sense that you have had practice in intelligent fighting to do most of them.
The Shield Master feat still lets people who go SnB have something cool going on with their off hand, having the best attack bonuses of all the TWFers.
Still, its nice to hear your interpretation of what the feat should mean. It seems you aren't the only one who thinks that way.
Well if you're playing a game by the rules, then expect it to work. If you're in a home game, then rule it how you like. Telling me that this isn't the rules is you saying "How did I get on the rules section of the boards?"
Please, keep your "how I'd run it" and other interpretations apart from the facts. I understand peoples fears with not appreciating the feat in the big picture, but that doesn't change the facts from being facts.
Well, the rules aren't all that strict, don't cover everything, are intended as guidelines beyond which one might expand in any game, and are often subject to interpretation. Your interpretation that Shield Master does literally what it says it does isn't wrong, but my interpretation that says shield master does what a developer has said it does is no less valid. Its just not written in the rulebooks as of now. Lots of the FAQ's aren't either, and there are some that aren't even FAQ's and just developer clarification. So "how I'd run it" can hold more merit than you think. I suggest you keep an open mind towards advice, even if it is given in a non-advice forum, because it still can be as valid as a rule.
I'm not saying that the rules forum shouldn't have interpretation, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with me saying things with a straight face. Discussing ambigious things and going into interpretation is fine and dandy, but when you clearly have things stated then they're clearly stated.
"You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon."
This isn't saying that it's the penalties from tfw, but rather any penalties. That's what it says. When you apply it to meaning it's exclusive to twf, then you're in interpretation land.
As far as I can tell, you are and have been implying that I don't know how to use the word objectively correctly. I am not reading things "MY WAY" but rather, the way they exist. I'm sorry that people think that since I mention something that was relevant to my interest to post about has me arguing a certain position that might favor what I'd like, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm being selfish in my arguments. Regardless if I give out information on what I will do with the rules, people will just assume that whatever side I argue is what I personally want or agree with. I argue for what it actually is, and not that I want it to mean.
Note that when I gave my view on what people were thinking when they made the feat, that I stated that I was giving my interpretation. I am aware that I crossed that line, and that what I wrote isn't me stating facts, so what exactly are you pointing out by mentioning that?
My point is with the combat expertise is that you don't have to do anything in regards with it when you use it toward your improved trip chains and stuff. The logic to just say that this has to be this way because it has twf is just a bad one. Seems logical to me as stated with my interpretation for why it was made to be fore twf dudes. It seems weird for people to play a fantasy game to grab a shield to do their business, but people do weird stuff that wasn't intended all the time. Do I need to justify not using combat expertise when tripping?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure no GM let alone a PFS one will let it run that you take *no* penalties on anything despite what the feat sats, BUT... if you're intent on getting yourself removed from a table you may as well go the whole hog and dual wield shields.
Yep. You are wielding another weapon, that weapon ALSO takes no penalties as it is a shield as well. If you're going to encourage them to tar and feather you, at least make sure it's for the absolute most ridiculous RAW abuse you can manage :P
Look mate. How bout you stop arguing and go try it at your local PFS game?
See if your DM is going to let it fly. And if he doesn't let it fly you can call up your local Venture Captain to complain to him and see if he'll make it fly for you.
If they see an issue and come online to the boards they'll make the call as to whether the game should be run as the Designer's intended or whether the RAW makes for the better game.
Because thats what it comes down to mate whether you like it or not.
|
|
The logic to just say that this has to be this way because it has twf is just a bad one.
Actually if you use CE while tripping you suffer the penalties too.... the conclusion your drawing and using to support your theory is at its base incorrect.
Tripping makes no reference in the feat to using combat expertise while tripping.
This feat however makes very explicit reference to TWF by saying "while wielding another weapon"
I'm very aware of the double shield man of insane awesome, and I personally will never and have never played such a stupid thing. I'm the guy who plays Human Fighter, and refuses to me Enlarged person due to flavor issues, and in 3.5 wouldn't bring myself down to using a spiked chain to be a boss at tripping.
Things I argue on the rules forum don't necessarily reflect what I personally desire to exist in the game.
I'm not saying that the rules forum shouldn't have interpretation, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with me saying things with a straight face.
There is no one true for everyone to play under, even in PFS. Even in pfs the rules are, on a good day, vague and subjective enough to require human interpretation. You should reach that conclusion rather quickly from any rules forum.
This isn't saying that it's the penalties from tfw, but rather any penalties. That's what it says. When you apply it to meaning it's exclusive to twf, then you're in interpretation land.
Which is somewhere you need to go sometimes. Even in pfs. Especially in PFS. A valid interpretation of rules as intended is not a violation of PFS guidelines.
As far as I can tell, you are and have been implying that I don't know how to use the word objectively correctly.
You're being more than a little liberal in its usage with reference to your own interpretations.
I am not reading things "MY WAY" but rather, the way they exist.
I don't think english is a language where there can be THE way. I'm pretty sure no gaming system has ever been written that objectively. I know the pathfinder rules system isn't written that way. This isn't really a complaint, just the reality i work under when I try to figure out what something MEANS.
|
|
I'll give you a guide for objective and subjective from nursing school.
Subjective is what someone says they feel.
Objective is what you and others can observe or measure.
When you something comes down to perspective of the one stating what's happening, and that perspective can change the meaning/intent etc it's a subjective point.
IE if you view this as only in regards to TWF penalties, it causing no penalties (regardless if in off, primary, light, or heavy) then it only causes no penalties then. If you however view it in a vacuum without any relation to it's feat chain or the intent of "while wielding another weapon" you come to your conclusion human fighter.
As you can tell, your perspective and "their" perspective draw to conclusions, hence you are not "objective" but subjective.
I'm pretty sure no GM let alone a PFS one will let it run that you take *no* penalties on anything despite what the feat sats, BUT... if you're intent on getting yourself removed from a table you may as well go the whole hog and dual wield shields.
Yep. You are wielding another weapon, that weapon ALSO takes no penalties as it is a shield as well. If you're going to encourage them to tar and feather you, at least make sure it's for the absolute most ridiculous RAW abuse you can manage :P
Sweet. Plus, you don't need to TWF. You just need to hold another weapon.
So just have a gauntlet a weapon) in right hand. And a Heavy Shield to shield bash with left. Only attack with left.
|
I wonder why people are getting up in arms about this. You've still got a really tanky character that does "okay" damage. It's not a feat I was familiar with, but I'd let it fly. You need pounce to use it consistently, or increased reach via a spell, and even IF you're taking 0 attack penalties, you still have to split your damage stats for two-weapon fighting (unless you're a ranger), and you're fighting with SHIELDS, some of the worst damage dealing weapons a melee guy can use. Low dice for their size and a truly awful crit range (20/x2) mean that you might be hitting quite often, but probably not for very much. But hey, at least your AC is good! >_>
I'm also pretty sure you'd be better off going with a Kukri/Heavy Shield or Scimitar/Light Shield combo and going for Bashing Finish. Bonus attacks on every crit is NICE.
I don't even want to continue anymore.
If you read the rules for the feat, it's absolutely saying this isn't restricted to twf. It's just subjective thinking to restricting it to that because you read the pre-req's, and you feel that because it mentions wielding two weapons, that it must be for TWF, but it doesn't. You wield two weapons, and thus you may suffer no penalties.
Looking at Weapon focus feat, I can absolutely tell you straight facts about that, and they cannot be disputed, so saying objectivity in the rules doesn't exist, isn't true. Even if you take a rule that is vague and ambiguous, I can tell you that certain words do absolutely exist or not, but why the hell would anyone waste their time with arguing if the word "the" was in the rule, when it clearly is. Arguing what the word "the" means in the rule, with where it is and stuff, is another issue.
Goodnight.