With stellar defenses compared to a more offensively oriented two-weapon fighter.
So you are trading a portion of a die of damage for a massive bonus to AC.
It is better than normal TWF because your shield (including potential magical enhancement bonuses) can be supplying you with a +2-7 bonus to AC.
That is a big edge. A whole extra layer of cake, so-to-speak.
I cannot honestly speak to PFS play. I will never play at one of those tables. I am considered to be one of the best GM's in my city of 250,000 people. Players put their names on a list and literally wait years to play in my campaigns and I even have one friend who flies in over 300 miles 4 times per year just so he does not miss my Call of Cthulu games.
Sort of. It is my belief that the use of a shield requires a so-called "hand-of-effort". One cannot simply "hold" a shield and expect to receive the shields AC bonus. (I have used a shield to defend myself from someone determined to strike me, it is, most definitely, NOT effortless.) It is my belief that the character must definitely spend effort anticipating enemy actions and moving the shield to intercept the incoming attacks. To steal a line from BBT, it makes "no logical sense" to believe that wielding a shield defensively requires no effort on the wielders part.
Can I quote a rule from the book that backs this up? No, I am not a rules lawyer. I am just a GM with more than 35 years of experience who can smell an exploit from a table away.
I further believe that this is supported by SKR's post on "intent" posited earlier in the thread. There are supposed to be trade-offs. Not cake+cake+cake.
Additionally, I believe that Aelyrinth is fundamentally correct in almost all of his assertions on this subject. His views on this seem to parallel my own understanding of this issue.
I apologize if this is not enough for you. My rules-fu is only of moderate strength and I do well just to keep the 50+ RPG game-systems in my head separate, much less memorize them all word-for-word.
So...anyone who feels that this effortless shield shenanigans is outside the RAI/RAW please feel free to tap that FAQ button.
Intent has no bearing on an FAQ???
RAI has NO bearing on an FAQ???
Riiiiiiight. And I have some ocean front property in the Gobi for sale cheap.
Look, I have neither the patience nor the time to engage in debate about the difference between your opinion and mine.
Lets just agree to disagree.
Any who would like this clarified, please hit the FAQ button.
Intent does matter.
Reliance on strict RAW is an inherently flawed approach.
According to strict reading of RAW a dead character can still move and fight.
I disagree. A clarification of intent is what is needed here.
I am not arguing the RAW. Aelryinth has convinced me and his stated understanding is precisely the same as my own. If he cannot convince you then I cannot.
I am arguing the RAI.
The intent here is pretty clear.
And it is being ignored in favor of exploiting the RAW.
So...this whole thing looks and smells like an exploit to me.
As far as the changing PC "concepts" goes, since when does a "concept" take all your feats?
My players establish their concepts at first level.
About 3rd -7th they look to see if any teamwork feats fit between their concepts.
Example: "I have been making good use of this shield I found", said the Cleric PC to the Paladin in my last carrion crown campaign. "Maybe we should practice using our shields in concert in hallways and tight spots.", she added.
How, precisely, does that disrupt a "concept"?
They did not know the exact AC in advance.
In a prior encounter with her (when she took Briar from them) they did discover that she was quite difficult to hit, though.
Your example is pure theorycraft. One sentence of actual play experience trumps two pages of theorycraft.
People say stunning fist is "useless" too, but my airwalking vanilla monk 9th stunning fisted a young adult dragon out of the air with a held action and killed it in the fall.
Actual play is what really matters.
Not sterile numbers on a whiteboard.
Teamwork feats that my players have used:
Back to Back
So...all you who do not like teamwork feats can certainly say that in your opinion teamwork feats are not worth it.
In mine and my players opinions they are.
So lets just agree to disagree.
When my players play classes that do not get teamwork feats for free, they still take them.
They use them often and consider them quite valuable.
They often choose their PC concepts at the beginning of the game and at about third to sixth level look and see if any of the teamwork feats fit in between some of their concepts. If they find one they like then they take it.
I cannot believe that this is even being argued about, much less that it has gone on for 200+ posts.
The rules clearly state that using a long or short bow requires two hands.
Do not look now, but that bow wielder just used two hands to attack.
The intent is quite clear.
Any who wish may go back to pretending otherwise now.
As long as my grievous infraction of board protocol did not destroy the entire internet then I am sure it will eventually be forgotten. :)
Sorry about those kittens though. I have seven cats myself. If you will let their owners know to contact me I can hook them up. Free even.
Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of time of inactivity before bumping a thread?
The save DC of the bomb is INT based, is it not?
The number of bombs usable per day is INT based, is it not?
The bombs additional damage (the plus after the dice) is determined by the INT score of the thrower, is it not?
Bombs are, quite obviously, a class ability that uses concentration.
The rage class ability precludes the use of "any ability that requires patience and concentration".
Edit: Ninja'd by Cavall
To those of you who were wondering about my health, unfortunately, today I got diagnosed with spinal degeneration.
Damn, Kevin. I am truly sorry to hear that.You are such a positive guy, it is hard to even imagine.
Know that we are all hoping that your condition improves in any way possible.
Sorry, but IMHO Combat Expertise is extremely useful in its current form.
It is useful for Sword and Board as well as two-handed warrior types.
I am not the only one with this opinion either. Ashiel recently went over its usefulness in depth in another thread.
I am prepping for my weekly Carrion Crown game at the moment though and do not have time to chase down that post.
Please be aware that this is a non-issue at many tables.
We are aware of your opinion on this topic, BBG.
You inform us of it at every opportunity.
You frequently open threads that, intentionally or not, create opportunities to inform us again.
Which is why you end up in these discussions so often.
You can post that you hate "unwritten rules" as much as you like.
Just be aware that others opinions are just as valid and they are free to post them as often as they like as well. And they will.
All I did was more evenly distribute the love being shared here.
In a small fraction of the time it took to list just over a dozen types of problem DM's I managed to list almost twice as many classifications of troublesome players. And I did it without even bothering to try and create an exhaustive list.