Proficient with shields. AKA: Proficiency cheese.


Rules Questions


Noticed something that could be misinterpreted on purpose.

prd wrote:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: An inquisitor is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, longbow, repeating crossbow, shortbow, and the favored weapon of her deity. She is also proficient with light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields).

Of course there are many blocks like this for classes, such as the cleric. I just noticed that it doesn't say what kind of proficiencies you have with those items. So, when it says "is also proficient with... shields", one could argue that this also means they have the weapon proficiencies for shields. I really doubt this is the intention of the rule, but it makes me wonder if anyone has ever tried to take advantage of that before.

Of course, maybe these classes are supposed to be proficient with all shields for shield bashing, but I'm doubtful of that.

Edit: I edited the title as the original intention of the discussion as morphed somewhat.


Dunno. I've never actually used a character that shield bashed. Shield as a weapon is noted on some lists as a martial weapon proficiency....
Dunno really.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifat wrote:
Shield as a weapon is noted on some lists as a martial weapon proficiency....

Yes, it seems to be generally understood that using a shield for a shield bash requires a martial proficiency, but you could bend the wording of the text to say they explicitly have proficiency in shields, thus they have that martial proficiency.

Honestly, shield bashing isn't so powerful, that allowing this would break the game. I'm just doubtful it is the intention that clerics, druids and inquisitors naturally have the weapon proficiency.


It's probably not the intent, but I'd certainly allow it as a GM.


Shield bash counts as a martial weapon. To be proficient in shield bash it has to specifically say, "shield bash" or "martial weapons" because Paizo don't care 'bout your shield-fighter build and won't take the time to specify.

It also doesn't specify you're proficient with armor spikes when you're proficient with armor.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I don't understand; are you asking whether or not your interpretation is correct, or are you just preaching to us on the (lack of) moral fiber of those who might disagree with you? Is there an actual rules question to this thread, or is it just "Look how bad someone might be"?

Sovereign Court

Extra cheese: Inquisitor of Ragathiel. Free exotic weapon proficiency with your Bastard sword.


Jiggy wrote:
I don't understand; are you asking whether or not your interpretation is correct, or are you just preaching to us on the (lack of) moral fiber of those who might disagree with you? Is there an actual rules question to this thread, or is it just "Look how bad someone might be"?

I may be wrong, but I got the impression of neither. Despite the original use of the word "cheese", the fact that he'd likely allow it, as GM, made me instead suspect that he's just pointing something out. Along the lines of, "Huh, look at that." rather than what you're suggesting (though utilization of the "cheese" term, made me at first feel as you do, too).

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I don't understand; are you asking whether or not your interpretation is correct, or are you just preaching to us on the (lack of) moral fiber of those who might disagree with you? Is there an actual rules question to this thread, or is it just "Look how bad someone might be"?
I may be wrong, but I got the impression of neither. Despite the original use of the word "cheese", the fact that he'd likely allow it, as GM, made me instead suspect that he's just pointing something out. Along the lines of, "Huh, look at that." rather than what you're suggesting (though utilization of the "cheese" term, made me at first feel as you do, too).

No, he never says he'd allow it, he says it probably wouldn't break the game if it *were* allowed.

And I'm not just looking at "cheese" in the thread title; his very first sentence says "misinterpret on purpose". He then goes on to say things like "take advantage" and (in his next post) "bend the wording". I think that says a lot about his opinion of those who would dare to disagree with him.


Weapon proficiencies are kind of weird in general, they're a nothing ability you barely remember up until you have a weapon that you really need/want to use, then they're everything. And having to soak a caster level or one of your (very limited) feats to get the one weapon you actually want (and like, 50 you will never, ever use, ever) is pretty expensive.

There are ways to make shield-fighter pretty nasty, though most of them work best if you take a level or two of Fighter anyway.

Personally I find it to be a nice way to have a divine caster with high AC, a good two-handed weapon, and still have a free hand.


Wow. It's kind of fun to have people dissect my wording so carefully.

Mostly, I'm under the impression that "rules as intended" this is not intended. I was wondering if there was some "rules as written" rule that invalidates this. I thought it was funny, so I posted it, and then as I was writing it, I decided it wouldn't be much of a buff if it did work that way. And then finally, I wondered if maybe it is intended to work in the inclusionary way. Maybe I had false expectations that kept me from reading the rules correctly.

So, would you allow a cleric,druid, etc to have martial weapon proficiency in shields as written? Do you agree that doing so would be "Rules as Written"? Do you believe this is "Rules as Intended"? Judging by some of the replies, I also wonder if some of you already played using this ruling. If so, I didn't mean to insult anyone as cheezy.


All I know is I'm failry certain the shield bash proficiency isn't intended, but I'd likely allow it simply because it isn't that powerful. At least not until he can get Shield Master.

Which is 15th level for an Inquisitor.

Sovereign Court

Are there actually deities that have shields as their favored weapon? I think it's FAQ worthy to see if this would apply to shield bash, if that is the case.


This is the first time i've thought about proficiency with a shield not letting you shield bash with it. Granted, thats not something i've ever seen at a table either but i am a little surprised that you need an entirely different proficiency to hit someone with something you are otehrwise proficient in. If i was running a game i wouldnt bat an eye about anyone proficient with shields as armor also claiming they could bash with them.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, the answer to this issue is HERE.


taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Extra cheese: Inquisitor of Ragathiel. Free exotic weapon proficiency with your Bastard sword.

Not particularly cheesy. It's only a difference of 1 point of damage on average than a longsword, and Ragathiel is a logical diety for many characters especially for the WoTR AP and similar fiend-enemy campaigns.

If there were an obscure demon lord or great old one or something who gave weapon proficiency in a falcata and people were stretching credibility as to why there were suddenly so many clerics and inquisitors and warpriest of Fred the demon lord of biscuits around, now that would be cheesy.

Sczarni

taldanrebel2187 wrote:
Extra cheese: Inquisitor of Ragathiel. Free exotic weapon proficiency with your Bastard sword.

How is using a deity's favored weapon "cheese"?


In any case, Jiggy found the answer in a FAQ, so we now know for a fact what RAW and RAI is.
If you want to allow it in a homegame, then all the power to you! But it isn't RAW/RAI.


Jiggy wrote:
Anyway, the answer to this issue is HERE.

Thanks Jiggy. I guess that's pretty definitive. It'd be nice if they could specify that the proficiency is armor only though. Because simply saying that a shield attack is martial is meaningless, when the text says you have proficiency shields, not "proficiency shields as armor".

I guess it's because they need to save money on printing costs, which is part of why we have to have FAQs sometimes.


Melkiador wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Anyway, the answer to this issue is HERE.

Thanks Jiggy. I guess that's pretty definitive. It'd be nice if they could specify that the proficiency is armor only though. Because simply saying that a shield attack is martial is meaningless, when the text says you have proficiency shields, not "proficiency shields as armor".

I guess it's because they need to save money on printing costs, which is part of why we have to have FAQs sometimes.

I don't think this was a matter of saving space. I think this was one of the rules that sort of fell through the cracks. The system is very big after all and there's bound to be rules that need clarifications and/or re-writes. A perfect system would be too much to ask.


Huh. I'll admit I didn't know this one. Now... Shoanti Tattoo trait gives proficiency with Klars... does this mean that you can only use a Klar like that for blocking and not for attacking with the spikes unless you take a -4 nonproficiency or are a class that gets all martials? I'd thought that the trait was to set you up to allow for things like Thunder and Fang.


As near as I can tell, Shoanti Tatoo is meant to give the weapon proficiency, since klar is listed between 2 weapons. It does raise the question of whether or not, you would be proficient with regards to blocking with the shield, if your class didn't already include shield proficiency.

Can you have a shield equipped not as a shield, but as a weapon, so you're not even trying to use it to block?

When the text says "using" a shield, is it referring to every use of the shield or just "using the shield as armor"?


Klar is listed on both the weapon and armor tables under it's normal name. Not sure what the intention is here exactly.


In order to use a shield as a weapon proficiently, you need weapon proficiency with it - which means martial weapons. Full stop, end of story. Do not attempt to say "BUT IT SAYS I'M PROFICIENT WITH SHIELDS!"

You know what that text means. It means you're proficient with using a shield as a shield.

Similarly, if you're proficient with Martial Weapons but not shields... you're not proficient with shields when used for defense.


But what about the Klar, from Shoanti Tattoo? Would you say that is just weapon, just armor, or both?

And I could argue that "using a shield as a shield" would historically include being able to bash with it. Using a shield as just a block pretty much never happened.


Game Master wrote:

In order to use a shield as a weapon proficiently, you need weapon proficiency with it - which means martial weapons. Full stop, end of story. Do not attempt to say "BUT IT SAYS I'M PROFICIENT WITH SHIELDS!"

You know what that text means. It means you're proficient with using a shield as a shield.

Similarly, if you're proficient with Martial Weapons but not shields... you're not proficient with shields when used for defense.

<SARCASM>I love it when people tell me what I know.</SARCASM>

I've been playing 3, 3.5, and Pathfinder for over a decade. I keep up with forums and am considered the local rules lawyer and one of the go-to guys in my gaming groups for rules answers. I missed the FAQ on this one that shield proficiency didn't mean you knew how to bash with it as well. I have no problem admitting to that.

But yes, I do question the intent of Shoanti Tattoo's proficiency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc
A pretty good video of shield techniques, though they aren't using the shields that seem to be assumed in the d20 game.

The d20 buckler in particular seems to not be a real thing. The d20 buckler by description is actually a bracer. The true buckler is demonstrated in that video.

And now for a video about why shields generally had a center grip, instead of the pop culture strapped shield:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdHo-1jbX1A

Interestingly, it's hard to find academics discussing the use of the strapped shield, possibly because those didn't often exist throughout history, although his hoplite video does go into the benefits of a strapped shield in a phalanx.

Sczarni

Klars are special.

They already break many rules.

If you try to categorize it, it will punch you in the face.

I can't see the Shoanti Tattoo trait not giving complete proficiency with all 3 items.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Proficient with shields. AKA: Proficiency cheese. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.