Shield Master Shennanigans


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

"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 attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

RAW, if you have armor spikes, or a gauntlet, and you are using a shield two handed, are you wielding both weapons? Both could be "wielded" even if they aren't being used to attack, right?

And if so, with shield master do suffer penalties to hit for power attack?

Also it says "you do not suffer any penalties, so does that include enemy debuffs as well?


Grumbaki wrote:

"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 attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

RAW, if you have armor spikes, or a gauntlet, and you are using a shield two handed, are you wielding both weapons? Both could be "wielded" even if they aren't being used to attack, right?

And if so, with shield master do suffer penalties to hit for power attack?

Also it says "you do not suffer any penalties, so does that include enemy debuffs as well?

RAW it's not entirely clear, but I think the RAI is that it only applies to the penalties for using Two-Weapon Fighting with a shield, since I'm pretty sure you can choose to attack with just the shield without it getting any penalties.

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Only the shoddiest of rules lawyers would attempt to stretch that RAW to extend to penalties not relating to wielding a shield, particularly those coming from hostile effects.


deusvult wrote:
Only the shoddiest of rules lawyers would attempt to stretch that RAW to extend to penalties not relating to wielding a shield, particularly those coming from hostile effects.

I consider that to be the greatest of compliments. :)

But yeah...the rules just say "all", they don't say "when two weapon fighting." So it seems to me at least that they indeed remove all penalties...no?

And to stretch it further, make it an oversized heavy spikes shield for 3d6 damage. Ignore the -2 to hit due to shield master.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yup, it says all so any and all. Power attack, combat expertise, sickened, shaken, grappled, oversized weapons, TWF, ITWF, GTWF, etc.

Now good luck finding anyone that lets you run that. In any game you're likely to play at, Including PFS, the GMs are allowed and going to tell you that it's only the -2/-4 for TWF.


we played it as follows:
1. no 2 shields. i know a shield is a weapon ... but no.
2. any effect that add minus WILL effect you.
3. you DO get a free pass on TWF, power attack, expertise etc ONLY ON the shield hand.


Aye aye I admit that it is ridiculous.

I admit that this is a huge slap in the face of RAI.

But RAW it seems valid.

And who knows? Maybe this will even eventually lead to an faq which gets rid of the obvious breach.

But until then, it's fun to find loopholes like this

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

If you attempt to intentionally misunderstand a rule to get a power boost, you're cheating. And why try to do that in a cooperative game, with a built-in referree who is going to stop you?

If all you're intending is to look for poorly-phrased abilities, then no worries. You found one. Just never try to use this in a game, heh. It doesn't work.

Liberty's Edge

The intent is clearly stated in the brief description on the feat table: "No two-weapon penalties when attacking with a shield".

As those words are actually written in the book, this is also 'RAW'... though RAI should always trump RAW.


Grumbaki wrote:

Aye aye I admit that it is ridiculous.

I admit that this is a huge slap in the face of RAI.

But RAW it seems valid.

And who knows? Maybe this will even eventually lead to an faq which gets rid of the obvious breach.

But until then, it's fun to find loopholes like this

IIRC, a designer posted that not only were the penalties suppose to be limited to those from TWF, the bonuses to attack were supposed to be limited to the actual AC bonuses, not enhancement bonuses.

So a +5 Shield does not give you any more bonus on your attacks than a normal shield. Whereas a heavy shield gives you +2 and a normal shield only gives you +1. I've never seen this FAQ'd or Errata'd on either count, but it at least we know what they were thinking when they wrote it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

IIRC, a designer posted that not only were the penalties suppose to be limited to those from TWF, the bonuses to attack were supposed to be limited to the actual AC bonuses, not enhancement bonuses.

So a +5 Shield does not give you any more bonus on your attacks than a normal shield. Whereas a heavy shield gives you +2 and a normal shield only gives you +1. I've never seen this FAQ'd or Errata'd on either count, but it at least we know what they were thinking when they wrote it.

That bears no resemblance to the text of the ability;

"Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

This seems very clearly to be saying that you DO add the shield enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, and NOT the base shield AC bonus... the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.


CBDunkerson wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

IIRC, a designer posted that not only were the penalties suppose to be limited to those from TWF, the bonuses to attack were supposed to be limited to the actual AC bonuses, not enhancement bonuses.

So a +5 Shield does not give you any more bonus on your attacks than a normal shield. Whereas a heavy shield gives you +2 and a normal shield only gives you +1. I've never seen this FAQ'd or Errata'd on either count, but it at least we know what they were thinking when they wrote it.

That bears no resemblance to the text of the ability;

"Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

This seems very clearly to be saying that you DO add the shield enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls, and NOT the base shield AC bonus... the exact opposite of what you are suggesting.

Shields can also be enchanted as weapons, and the wording says "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus" meaning it is not an actual weapon enchantment bonus.

If a shield had +5 armor and +5 weapon enchantments, would a Shield Master get an effective +10 to attack and damage rolls?


Gallant Armor wrote:

Shields can also be enchanted as weapons, and the wording says "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus" meaning it is not an actual weapon enchantment bonus.

If a shield had +5 armor and +5 weapon enchantments, would a Shield Master get an effective +10 to attack and damage rolls?

No because bonuses of the same type don't stack. The character in question would have a +5 enhancement bonus to damage and a +5 enhancement bonus to AC that's being applied to damage by special exception, but it's still an enhancement type bonus. Now, if it said to apply your shield's defensive enhancement bonus to its offensive bonus, that'd fall under the same scope as a bonus to natural armor being added to a natural armor bonus to AC.

Scarab Sages

You could have an effective +14 of total enchancements though. You could have a +1 shocking corrosive flaming frost holy shield of speed, and override the +1 enchantment of the shield weapon with the +5 defense enhancement bonus.


Kazaan wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

Shields can also be enchanted as weapons, and the wording says "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus" meaning it is not an actual weapon enchantment bonus.

If a shield had +5 armor and +5 weapon enchantments, would a Shield Master get an effective +10 to attack and damage rolls?

No because bonuses of the same type don't stack. The character in question would have a +5 enhancement bonus to damage and a +5 enhancement bonus to AC that's being applied to damage by special exception, but it's still an enhancement type bonus. Now, if it said to apply your shield's defensive enhancement bonus to its offensive bonus, that'd fall under the same scope as a bonus to natural armor being added to a natural armor bonus to AC.

Except the item says "add" the shield enchancement, not "use" or "replace.

Shield Master wrote:
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

This tells me that if I have +5 shield that has a +5 weapon weapon enhancement on it, I get +10 to hit and damage. They stack because it says "add". If it seems like a ridiculous benefit, consider that it wasn't suppose to be the enhancement bonus, just the shield bonus to AC.


CBDunkerson wrote:

That bears no resemblance to the text of the ability;

"Add your shield’s enhancement base bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

Claiming it bears "no resemblance" isn't accurate. The difference in operation is a result of someone using the wrong term. I forget the term the designer said was suppose to be used, but it was clear that the original intention was that it was the non-magical shield bonus. I would not be surprised if an editor substituted "enhancement" by mistake, because I think this would have been the only feat in the game that actually referenced a shield bonus sin magical enhancement. I can easily seeing the editor thinking the person really meant enhancement bonus.

If I can find the actual post, I'll share it. But don't have time to look it up.

EDIT: fixed my correction above based on the post below.


Okay, found the posts after 30 seconds of searching:

Quote:

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.

Emphasis mine. Obviously something got lost in translation when the item went to print.

Liberty's Edge

N N 959 wrote:
I forget the term the designer said was suppose to be used, but it was clear that the original intention was that it was the non-magical shield bonus.

Given that Shield Master appeared in the CRB and has never been adjusted I have to believe that the way it is currently worded (i.e. use the shield enhancement bonus) was either the original intent or something they long since decided to keep.

Also note... if it WERE the AC bonus then feats like Shield Focus and Shield Wall would increase your 'weapon enhancement' bonus when attacking with the shield.

It makes more sense to me for one magic enhancement bonus to do double duty as another... as indeed is also done with the Shield Gauntlet Master feat where a weapon enhancement bonus also serves as a shield enhancement bonus (the inverse of Shield Master).


CBDunkerson wrote:

[

Also note... if it WERE the AC bonus then feats like Shield Focus and Shield Wall would increase your 'weapon enhancement' bonus when attacking with the shield.

Check my post above yours.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Obviously something got lost in translation when the item went to print.

...and has stayed 'lost' for seven years (and six re-printings) now.

Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work. Personally, I'm not gonna be holding my breath on this one getting rewritten.


N N 959 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Gallant Armor wrote:

Shields can also be enchanted as weapons, and the wording says "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus" meaning it is not an actual weapon enchantment bonus.

If a shield had +5 armor and +5 weapon enchantments, would a Shield Master get an effective +10 to attack and damage rolls?

No because bonuses of the same type don't stack. The character in question would have a +5 enhancement bonus to damage and a +5 enhancement bonus to AC that's being applied to damage by special exception, but it's still an enhancement type bonus. Now, if it said to apply your shield's defensive enhancement bonus to its offensive bonus, that'd fall under the same scope as a bonus to natural armor being added to a natural armor bonus to AC.

Except the item says "add" the shield enchancement, not "use" or "replace.

Shield Master wrote:
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

This tells me that if I have +5 shield that has a +5 weapon weapon enhancement on it, I get +10 to hit and damage. They stack because it says "add". If it seems like a ridiculous benefit, consider that it wasn't suppose to be the enhancement bonus, just the shield bonus to AC.

That's inconsequential. If you had a shield that was enchanted as a +5 shield as well as +5 weapon, normally, you'd add a +5 enhancement bonus from the weapon enhancement to your attack and damage with it. With Shield Master, it says you can add your shield's AC enhancement bonus to your attack and damage "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus". It doesn't say add it to the weapon enhancement bonus. So, in effect, you have a shield with a +5 enhancement bonus to attack/damage and also another +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Since they're both enhancement bonuses, they don't stack.


Kazaan wrote:


That's inconsequential. If you had a shield that was enchanted as a +5 shield as well as +5 weapon, normally, you'd add a +5 enhancement bonus from the weapon enhancement to your attack and damage with it. With Shield Master, it says you can add your shield's AC enhancement bonus to your attack and damage "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus". It doesn't say add it to the weapon enhancement bonus. So, in effect, you have a shield with a +5 enhancement bonus to attack/damage and also another +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Since...

lol...it's not "inconsequential," its dispositive. The description says "as if"because the bonus you're adding is not a weapon enhancement and that tells us to add the benefit to both attack and damage because that's how "weapon" enhancements work, but not shield enhancements. We would not know what to do with a shield enhancement if we were not told to treat it as a weapon enhancement. And there is no "to" because your shield many not have a weapon enhancement.

Add means add. Trying to convince us that add really means replace is a non-starter.

Sczarni

CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.

Link.


Nefreet wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.
Link.

So what if it works.

The fact that the statement hasn't been employed for over 7 years now (and as others mentioned, over 6 separate printings), and this has been an issue that has long since been brought to light and supposedly "clarified," tells us that either A. they changed their design philosophy and kept the wording, or B. they are really incompetent at keeping their word on clarifying things.

As such, I find it best to give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation, and say that A is the most likely answer to the question "Why hasn't this been fixed yet?"


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.
Link.

So what if it works.

The fact that the statement hasn't been employed for over 7 years now (and as others mentioned, over 6 separate printings), and this has been an issue that has long since been brought to light and supposedly "clarified," tells us that either A. they changed their design philosophy and kept the wording, or B. they are really incompetent at keeping their word on clarifying things.

As such, I find it best to give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation, and say that A is the most likely answer to the question "Why hasn't this been fixed yet?"

Given how inconsistent Paizo has been with FAQs and erratas, B is pretty likely too.


johnlocke90 wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.
Link.

So what if it works.

The fact that the statement hasn't been employed for over 7 years now (and as others mentioned, over 6 separate printings), and this has been an issue that has long since been brought to light and supposedly "clarified," tells us that either A. they changed their design philosophy and kept the wording, or B. they are really incompetent at keeping their word on clarifying things.

As such, I find it best to give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation, and say that A is the most likely answer to the question "Why hasn't this been fixed yet?"

Given how inconsistent Paizo has been with FAQs and erratas, B is pretty likely too.

You'd need to clarify what you mean when you say "inconsistent," because in some cases, they could be "inconsistent," and they'd still not clarify it.


And when they do it'll probably be more wasted page space and a trap. Slash and Burn Errata is, sadly, a used phrase on the boards now.

Sovereign Court

This wording was IMO created to alleviate the rather large penalty you get while TWF with a heavy shield, which is a one-handed weapon (not considered light, like, umm... the light shield...) :)


shield master is the only way to completely eliminate TWF penalties when TWF those are the only penalties it gets rid of.

Sczarni

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.
Link.

So what if it works.

The fact that the rant rant rant...

Whoa, settle down there buddy. I was only pointing out that the link exists. Don't construe anything else from my post.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Grumbaki wrote:

"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 attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus."

RAW, if you have armor spikes, or a gauntlet, and you are using a shield two handed, are you wielding both weapons? Both could be "wielded" even if they aren't being used to attack, right?

And if so, with shield master do suffer penalties to hit for power attack?

Also it says "you do not suffer any penalties, so does that include enemy debuffs as well?

Wield is attacking, so you are not wielding if you don't attaxk.

Also, any is limited to TWF penalties.

Sczarni

Wield is threatening, not attacking.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wield has officially 2 or 3 meanings.

Liberty's Edge

Nefreet wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Indeed, it was so long ago that links to the post where Jason said he wanted to try to change it no longer work.
Link.

Thanks. I wanted to read it in context, but all the other links I found in old posts were broken. Apparently the way Paizo constructs their message board URLs changed somewhere along the line.

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:
Wield is threatening, not attacking.

Unless you're fighting defensively.


N N 959 wrote:
Kazaan wrote:


That's inconsequential. If you had a shield that was enchanted as a +5 shield as well as +5 weapon, normally, you'd add a +5 enhancement bonus from the weapon enhancement to your attack and damage with it. With Shield Master, it says you can add your shield's AC enhancement bonus to your attack and damage "as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus". It doesn't say add it to the weapon enhancement bonus. So, in effect, you have a shield with a +5 enhancement bonus to attack/damage and also another +5 enhancement bonus to attack and damage. Since...

lol...it's not "inconsequential," its dispositive. The description says "as if"because the bonus you're adding is not a weapon enhancement and that tells us to add the benefit to both attack and damage because that's how "weapon" enhancements work, but not shield enhancements. We would not know what to do with a shield enhancement if we were not told to treat it as a weapon enhancement. And there is no "to" because your shield many not have a weapon enhancement.

Add means add. Trying to convince us that add really means replace is a non-starter.

I feel like we're having two entirely disconnected discussions here. The enhancement bonus to AC is still an enhancement bonus. You do "add" it to your attack and damage rolls when using the Shield Master feat, but enhancement bonuses don't stack with each other. So the enhancement bonus to AC that's being applied to attack and damage rolls gets added along with the weapon enhancement bonus that's on the shield and any other enhancement bonuses you might enjoy, but since they don't stack on account of all being enhancement bonuses, you only take the greatest one. If you have a +3 shield that's also a +1 weapon and you cast Magic Weapon for a +5 bonus, you're getting a +3 enhancement bonus via Shield Master, a +1 enhancement bonus from a magic weapon, and a +5 enhancement bonus from the Magic Weapon spell. Bonuses of the same type don't stack so you only end up using the +5 bonus from Magic Weapon because it overrides both the bonus gained through Shield Master and the normal weapon bonus already on the shield. So yes, when it comes to bonuses of the same type, according to the rules of the game, "add" does mean "replace" if the bonus you're adding is greater than the bonus already in effect. It also means that "add" means "don't do squat" if the bonus you're "adding" is less than or equal to the bonus already in place.

By contrast, the Bane enhancement actually increases the weapon enhancement bonus. If Shield Master had been written like Bane is, then you'd have a valid point. If you have a +3 weapon with Bane, it functions as a +5 weapon against the target of the Bane because the Bane bonus adds to the enhancement bonus in the same way a "bonus to natural armor" adds to a "natural armor bonus to AC". So if Shield Master said something along the lines of, "Increase the shield's weapon enhancement bonus by a value equal to its defensive enhancement bonus", then a +3(defensive)/+1(weapon) Shield would function as if it were a +4 weapon using Shield Master. But, the way it's written, it instead functions as if it were a +3 weapon due to the fact that the +1 and +3 are two separate enhancement bonuses which do not stack.


Sorry, I simply disagree. The game frequently tells us when things don't stack, for example:

PRD Favored Enemy Bonus wrote:
If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.

The authors have no problem in telling us when we are only suppose to use the higher value. Here they did not. They said "add" your shield enhancement to attack and damage 'as if' it were a weapon enhancement. They authors don't care what your existing enhancement is or whether you have one. You're simply adding your shield enhancement to the rolls. Along with whatever other bonuses you get.

And no, the rules do not say "add" when they do not want things to stack. What the authors are extremely consistent at is telling us when bonuses are not suppose to stack any time rules involve adding bonuses to things that have bonuses.

PRD on MW weapons wrote:
The enhancement bonus granted by the masterwork quality doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus provided by the weapon's magic.

Add....means....add.


N N 959 wrote:

Sorry, I simply disagree. The game frequently tells us when things don't stack, for example:

PRD Favored Enemy Bonus wrote:
If a specific creature falls into more than one category of favored enemy, the ranger's bonuses do not stack; he simply uses whichever bonus is higher.

The authors have no problem in telling us when we are only suppose to use the higher value. Here they did not. They said "add" your shield enhancement to attack and damage 'as if' it were a weapon enhancement. They authors don't care what your existing enhancement is or whether you have one. You're simply adding your shield enhancement to the rolls. Along with whatever other bonuses you get.

And no, the rules do not say "add" when they do not want things to stack. What the authors are extremely consistent at is telling us when bonuses are not suppose to stack any time rules involve adding bonuses to things that have bonuses.

PRD on MW weapons wrote:
The enhancement bonus granted by the masterwork quality doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus provided by the weapon's magic.
Add....means....add.

Sometimes, wording is redundant.

CRB, bonus wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.


Kazaan wrote:
I feel like we're having two entirely disconnected discussions here.

I had a little bit of an epiphany for why you and I read this differently, not sure if this will help. Take another look at the rule:

Shield Master wrote:
Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.

The way this is written, I believe the intent is that the feat does not give you a combined weapon enhancement, it gives the benefit of your shield enhancement to your attack and damage rolls. In other words, someone with a +3 shield and Shield Master does not have a +3 weapon. They have a non-enhanced weapon that gets +3 on attack and damage by virtue of shield master. So in a sense, there is no stacking issue, because Shield Master does not increase the weapon's enhancement value. It does "add" the shield enhancement to "attack and damage rolls" and not to the weapon's enhancement value.

I doubt that changes anything for you, maybe others will now see this differently.


The Sideromancer wrote:


CRB, bonus wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.

And in this specific instance, we are told to "add."


N N 959 wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:


CRB, bonus wrote:
Bonus: Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not "stack")—only the greater bonus granted applies.
And in this specific instance, we are told to "add."

I interpret it as adding enhancement to enhancement, so only highest applies. I do see where you are coming from, though.


The Sideromancer wrote:


I interpret it as adding enhancement to enhancement, so only highest applies.

And don't you see the inherent problem? You don't ever "add" enhancements together. So it's nonsensical for the authors to tell us to "add" two things together which don't stack. Unless, we aren't actually combining enhancements, we're simply adding the value to the attack and damage, or, the authors actually intend for them to be added.

Even if you believe it is an enhancement bonus being added to an enhancement bonus:

Magic Weapon wrote:

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.

You'll notice it does not say "adds a +1 enhancement bonus."

Bless wrote:
Bless fills your allies with courage. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and on saving throws against fear effects.

Once gain, it does not say "adds a +1 morale bonus." The authors don't use "add" when conferring bonuses for things that they don't intend to stack with something of the same type..


A +2 weapon enhancement and +2 shield enhancement is much cheaper than a +4 shield or a +4 weapon, so I don't rule it as a legal trick.


The Sideromancer wrote:
A +2 weapon enhancement and +2 shield enhancement is much cheaper than a +4 shield or a +4 weapon, so I don't rule it as a legal trick.

Except it takes a feat to acquire that, so comparing things 1 to 1 when one requires a feat...that normally isn't available until a BAB +11 renders your cost comparison....compromised.

And guess what? A +2 Shield enhancement is much cheaper than a +2 Weapon enhancement, so you're running into problem right out of the gate with that approach.

Liberty's Edge

I don't believe Paizo intended for it to be possible to get the equivalent of a +10 weapon enhancement bonus... nor that you could get the equivalent of a +5 weapon enhancement (50k gp) for the cost of a +3 armor enhancement (9k gp) and a +2 weapon enhancement (8k gp).

If we treat it "as if" a weapon enhancement bonus then it does not stack with other weapon enhancement bonuses.

Also, as noted previously... there is now a similar feat (Shield Gauntlet Master) which allows you to "add" a weapon enhancement bonus "as if" it were a shield enhancement bonus. Anyone want to argue that this lets you get a +10 bonus to AC?


CBDunkerson wrote:
I don't believe Paizo intended for it to be possible to get the equivalent of a +10 weapon enhancement bonus... nor that you could get the equivalent of a +5 weapon enhancement (50k gp) for the cost of a +3 armor enhancement (9k gp) and a +2 weapon enhancement (8k gp).

I could likewise make the argument that Paizo did not intend for someone to get a +5 weapon enhancement for the cost of a +3 armor enhancement and it would be just as unavailing. You have to spend a feat that is normally only available at level 11 and then only if you're fighter type and then only if you've taken the prereqs. So your comparison based on straight cost is flawed and so is the logic that is based on it.

Let's actually list the requirements to achieve what you're suggesting

Shield Master prereqs wrote:
Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.

So trying to present this as simple matter of comparing cost is incorrect. On top of that, the bonus is to shield. Something that is typically an off-hand weapon and not a particularly effective one. So it's entirely possible that Paizo intended the bonus to be +10 to attack given the cost to get there.

Quote:
If we treat it "as if" a weapon enhancement bonus then it does not stack with other weapon enhancement bonuses.

Based on my reading, you don't get a +10 weapon. You have a +5 weapon which benefits from an extra +5 to attack and damage because of feat. Read the text. It says you add the modifier to "attack and damage rolls." RAW. It does not say you add the value to the weapon's enhancement value.

Liberty's Edge

N N 959 wrote:
It does not say you add the value to the weapons enhancement value.

Correct. It says you treat it "as if" it were a weapon enhancement value. Meaning... it does not stack with other weapon enhancement values.


CBDunkerson wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
It does not say you add the value to the weapons enhancement value.
Correct. It says you treat it "as if" it were a weapon enhancement value. Meaning... it does not stack with other weapon enhancement values.

As I stated before, you don't add armor enhancements to attack and damage, only weapon enhancements, hence the "as if." And once again, it is illogical and nonsensical for the authors to tell us to "add" something if they intend for us not to be able to add it. There is literally no other place in the rule book where the rules tell us to "add" something that we cannot add. As such your interpretation is self-defeating and must be wrong.


I think the core issue is that the "as if" wording leaves the question open as to the type of bonus this feat is giving.

Here are two interpretations (brackets added).

Add [an untyped bonus equal to] your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.

Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus [, this bonus doesn't stack with a weapon's existing enhancement bonus].

In either case, would the bonus granted by shield master overcome DR?

1 to 50 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Shield Master Shennanigans All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.