The problem is feats that give shield users extra offensive strength: Feats that let you use the shield as weapon without losing its armour bonus, feats that eliminate two-weapon fighting penalties for shield users only, and also let you use the shield's AC bonus as an enhancement bonus to attack and damage, which means you're getting a magical weapon for free. Might as well have a dancing weapon that uses the owner's stats and keeps going indefinetlely.
Assuming the bash feat allows multiple off hand attacks that may be true. Not one of us in our group read those feats and took it as you could make multiple off hand attacks nor did anyone assume that the defensive part of a magic shield's enhancement bonus stacked to the roll when making the attack (our question was if a magical shield spike enhancement would). It states you can make a single shield bash per round and there are no notes for anything regarding improved or greater 2WF influencing it at all. As it stands you are limited to a single (albeit better) off hand attack with just the shield's actual bonus (at best +4 with a tower shield but then you are taking penalties on all attacks as well). That is a far far cry from indefinite dancing weapon.
Well the heavy spiked shield is listed as a one handed weapon, as such it can be used as a one handed weapon, would be my understanding. After all you see such being done all the time in fantasy books/movies/comics/et al.
I'm still of the opinion that the magic bonus on a shield affects its shield bonus, otherwise there is no point in having both a +5 magic shield and a +5 magic armor since they both give enhancement bonuses to AC. Also if the enhancement bonus doesn't actually increase the shield bonus, the the enhancement bonus from a belt of strength shouldn't enhance your attack rolls and damage rolls since it isn't your str.
I'm not failing to recognize that, though Pathfinder gave them a few new things to add to their schtick.
But there's a difference between saying "my schtick is that I get lots of feats" and "my schtick is that I get special feats that nobody else can get". Two different schticks.
I, for one, would rather take all the fighter-only feats and erase them from the feat list and write them into the fighter class as abilities they get a specific levels (maybe instead of a free feat, or as an option to take the ability that level or take a feat instead).
And I even agree that a couple feats that are fignter-only probably should remain so. Such as Weapon Specialization. Every other class spends a lot of time doing other things. They don't have the time to specialize in a weapon like fighters do. OK, it's a bit weak, but I can buy it.
But then people jump on this fighter-only train and start creating feats willy-nilly and labeling them "fighter-only" without thinking about what that really means, and suddenly you have a whole bunch of feats limited to one class, many of which don't have the "intense fighter focus" flavor like Weapon Sepcialization.
Apparently you are misunderstanding the "Schtick."
The schtick is Fighter Appropriate Feats, not just feats. There is a difference, though in core rules it is a rather small one. Paizo has seemingly picked up on it and will hopefully be making use of the difference. Feats that are only available to fighters by having PREREQ's of X levels of fighter. This is an area that can (and apparently will) be used to help establish the identity of the fighter class. Prior to PFRPG core rules this area only had greater weapon focus and the weapon specialization tree, PFRPG is expanding that with new feats hopefully.
FYI I seriously doubt Paizo's staff are making feats willy nilly without thinking about what it means, regardless of whoever you think is jumping on whatever train. The fighter class still needs a bump, I have always believed this. If it comes with more "fighter only" feats to keep it simple and working with existing mechanics, I'm okay with it. The whole arguement would be moot if in the beginning fighters had a list of "Combat Tricks" or some other inane title instead of "bonus feats" to save page count. It is semantics, "because it is a "feat" why can't my non fighter character have it?"
And for the record there were only 3 "fighter only" feats in core, probably some in the PHB 2 but I don't have it to look through atm. Not some gross amount you seem to be implying. I'd have to say it makes them a pretty "select" group of feats.
Fighters still get 10 more feats than anyone else. Most other classes don't get 10 class abilities, and many of the classes that do, their class abilities are often weaker than many good feats, or scattered and lacking focus. Fighters get to focus their feat selection on one thing (if they wish): being better and killing stuff with their weapons. Though, hopefully that doesn't mean they neglect spending a couple feats to compensate their weaknesses.
I'm going to suggest you go back and read through the class tables again, then reassess your comment about classes not getting 10 abilities. Every class in PFRPG gets a bare minimum of 10 "abilties" and the lowest is the sorcerer who gets bloodline powers and bloodline feats. Now factor in that spells can be vastly better than feats per single casting and the fighter ends up on back on the short end of things again because that total number of class abilities gets larger for any caster. Sneak attack isn't a class ability, it is 10(d6's) by 20th level, just like Armor Training isn't a single ability it is 4 total. Also most of the class abilities are not "weaker than many good feats" as they actually scale with level, feats don't, even the feat trees don't usually - 2WF being the exception for sure.
"Being better and killing stuff with their weapons" should actually be "Being better in combat and excelling on the battlefield." Why? Because PFRPG is not just focusing the Fighter on offense but all round combat effectiveness via weapon and armor training. They are getting defensive bonuses as well as offense bumps. In core there was the weapon specialization tree and greater weapon focus, now PFRPG is allowing the fighter to expand defense as well with the shield specialization and shield mastery trees. Not only is the precedent there, it makes sense by your own admission because weapon specialization is "buyable."
Not really.The beauty of being a fighter, his schtick, is that he can learn stuff everyone else can, but he has the time and focus to learn a lot more of it.
The realy beauty of it is that a fighter can be just about any kind of combatant you can imagine. Robin Hood, Three Musketeer, Conan, Tarzan, Samurai, Viking, Roman Legionnaire, Spartan, Street Brawler, Pirate, etc.
No other class has that versatility. All the other classes have specific abilities handed to them.
Fighters, on the other hand, are handed a list of hundreds of feats and told to pick and choose what they want to meet their character's needs and goals.
Nobody else gets that.
Well options are nice but too much generaliztion is bad as well, you can be too versitile. Too many random little perks don't add up to several focused abilities. 10 feats don't come close to 10d6 sneak attack or rage points. 5 feats don't come close to the rangers primary favored enemy or a clerics domain abilities.
Fighters don't get a list of hundreds of feats, they have a distinct and limited subset that they can choose from for class feats. You are exagerating and "reaching" badly to say otherwise. There are less than 50 in core 3.5 with 3 of them being "fighter only" feats (So everybody basically gets "that", in all honesty), room for improvement that paizo will be taking advantage of I hope. Due to having a PREREQ of X levels of Fighter, fighter only feats/feat trees can be marginally better than your typical feats and not introduce balance issues anywhere else in the game. It is also an area where distinct combat abilities can be introduced to make the Fighter stand out, the anti-caster feat tree being a prime example.
Only applicable, IMO, to feats that really cry out "hey, you have to be remarkably focused on combat to even consider being this good". All other feats that feel more like "spend a little time and learn a new trick" shouldn't, IMO, belong to just one class.
Feats that deal with bonuses that stack "to hit", "damage" and "AC" all scream "remarkably focused on combat." +2 to AC or DR 4/- when using a shield aren't just "new tricks." At +2 you are getting twice bonus of the shield, doubling its effectiveness - That doesn't sound like a "trick" that you just all the sudden learn to me. If the shield spec and greater shield spec were +2 and +4 total respectively would that solve your flavor issue and be enough that they wouldn't be just "tricks" then? That is about the limit of where I'd want to see them get to though.
You mean like bravery?
Paladins are immune to fear and provide a comparable bonus to everyone around them...
You mean like armor training?
Fighters should be good in combat, this helps BUT there are spells that are comparable if not better (shield of faith is a deflection bonus so better).
You mean like weapon training?
Again this is nice but not unique (Rangers get a bigger bonus and skill bonuses on 3 types of creatures) or spells that duplicate or exceed (touch attacks vs standard attacks or not having to roll at all even) OR Sneak attack, 3rd level rogue will trump the extra damage being done by 17th Fighter on average every time.
You mean like armor mastery?
Capstone ability, it should be that good, though Paladins do get DR 10/evil which is slightly worse versus outsiders as they are the only critters that typically have the "counts as evil" tag on their attacks, otherwise its great. So almost but not quite. No effect for 18 levels of your career though.
You mean like weapon mastery?
The only real signature ability but again a Capstone ability which only comes to play at 20th. It doesn't count for 19 levels... Well actually everyone can take that feat that increase crit range or just use keen and I seem to recall a feat that increased the crit multiplier too... Auto crits are nice! Well unless the creature is immune to crits or has fortification... If all else fails at least I know I will never be disarmed (because there are a TON of creatures out there that use the tactic...) What can I say, at least it sounds cool.
You mean like the flexibility to define themselves any way they want?
If I wanted to play a barbarian/paladin/ranger-like character... I wouldn't be playing a fighter, I'd be playing that other class. In reality I'm playing a fighter because the other classes didn't fit the bill. My only other option when wanting to play a heavy armored combat type is paladin, if I don't want the religous backdrop, code of honor and alignment crap I'm left with fighter. Prior to PFRPG no one in our group ever played a straight fighter or if they did it was to fulfill prereqs for a PrC asap. Fighters are better now in the PFRPG BETA but they still have some way to go, the "fighter only" feats Jason posted are a decent try at it.
Random slap in the face (just for you ;)
What is there about the concept of paladin that says "these guys should suck at using shields compared to a true fighter"?Paladins, iconically, are nearly always depicted with sword and shield. They are the classical defenders, clanking around in heavy armor and fending off blows with their heavy shields.
You are implying something that doesn't actually exist. There is no backing for your complaint, there are no rules that say (besides Tower shield which only fighters get IIRC) the paladin is taking a PENALTY when using a shield. That is what you are implying with your statement of "these guys should suck at using shields compared to a true fighter." You take a first level fighter and a first level paladin with the same feat choices and same attributes with the same gear - they are equal. The paladin isn't suddenly worse off then the fighter because they are using a shield. The only time that it changes through almost the entire adventuring career (besides armor mastery @19th) is IF a fighter chooses to focus on being a defensive type and takes shield spec or shield mastery which are limited to fighters only. This doesn't innately make paladins poor shield users, it is just that fighters have options to excel in combat not available to others now, and that is far from a bad thing. The actual interpretation would be "the fighters have the posibility of using a shield better than a paladin", it isn't a given, it isn't a constant and most of all it doesn't mean paladins using shields suck. Unique options are always a good thing, the fighter could use more of them to increase their "versatility" and apparently Paizo agrees to some extent (how far remains to be seen once the game book is out).
Why should fighters at least 3 shield feats I can think of, off the top of my head, that paladins can't?
Maybe because...
Detect Evil- Basically always know who your opponent is, ranks in sense motive pffh!
Smite Evil- Equivalent to bigger bonuses faster than the fighter, soon to last the whole round apparently. At later levels you can pass it around to all your buddies too!
Divine Grace- Based on your class attribute, huge save bumps, worth at least 3 feats with a mediocre CHR. No possible combination of saves gives you a +5 (20 stats are possible at first level now) to all three saves at 2nd level. Also will get better as they increase their primary stat.
Lay on Hands - Healing (eventually Heal), cure disease, remove curse, neutralize poison, break enchantment. How is that for versatility?
Divine health - immune to all diseases. As a paladin I wipe my nose with my hankerchief for role-playing flavor not because of mummy rot.
Aura of Courage - Immune to fear, no silly bonuses for you BUT you DO give them to others. Basically = Bravery on Epic Crack and no withdrawl and all at 3rd level... Maybe that should be Epic Bravery on crack. Which is better?
Channel Positive Energy - Even more healing and for the whole party! Also doubles as an offensive weapon for those pesky undead (who are immune to crits btw so a fighters capstone ability is pretty much worth less - that should also be a point up above... BRB in a sec while I go edit) Ends up always being maxed out later on too.
Divine Bond - Extra bodies on the battle field is always a good thing. Instant magical weapon abilites at X minutes per use isn't too shabby either. Actually that is argueably better than weapon training now that I think about it, you could have a +5 (+1 enhancement) OR mix it up and get the abilities you need on the spot. Doubles as a torch! (It is pathetic but true and if your race doesn't have darkvision and is in complete darkness it even becomes a bonus sadly)
Aura of Resolve - Immune to charm thingies AND bonus to friends to boot.
Aura of Justice - Give your party smite.
Aura of Faith - One of the less spectacular ones but as it makes any opponent be treated as if hit by a Good aligned attack it is basically granting your party members a feat if not a tree of feats.
Aura of Righteousness - Another immunity (to compulsion this time) and another bonus to you buddies. You also are getting DR 5/evil out of it.
Holy Champion - DR 10/evil now, banishment on smite and max channeling (potentially a pretty decent weapon as well as mass heal).
Add spells as needed to tweak and mix...
10 of the best cherry picked feats from PFRPG don't add up, hell 10 feats from the expanded list and PFRPG don't even with a fighters innate +hit/damage/AC. Fighter only feats need to be improved and expanded upon, the 4 shield feats Jason listed would be the tip of the iceberg in the grand scheme of things. But again at least it is a start and it is in the right direction.
As I have said, maybe it works from a game mechics POV. If we say "well, fighters don't get much else, let's give them this because it balances the game", well, then maybe it adds to game balance.But it's not entirely realistic.
Umm, it is a fantasy game, "realistic" kinda left the building at game conception. It could just be me but...Dragons, magic, arbitrary skill points, random mechanics to simulate things possible... No? Apparently it is me, sorry.
We could also say "well, fighters don't get much else, let's add a rule that only fighters can learn how to swing swords. Anyone else wants to learn to use a sword, they should take levels in fighter."That might also add to game balance, but it detracts from what makes sense.
So does limiting easy, ordinary feats to be just "fighter-only".
But they don't say that, they say that everyone trained in using a shield gets the same effect (shield bonus). The fighter who is exceptionally trained as a combatant (his role in adventuring life) can do it better if he/she decides to train that way (aka take the feats). At what point did that lose you and stop making sense? At the cost of class resources a fighter has the option to choose from a list of things out of which only a handful or two are reserved for that specific class. That sounds an awfully like paladins spell list actually, yes there may be some overlap with the cleric but there are a handful of paladin only spells. Why aren't you up in arms about that? Why shouldn't all divine casters have those spells? Taken to extremes why shouldn't every class have access to every ability?
As for the "easy, ordinary feats" I have already covered that up above. They fit your requirements of being "combat intensive" and obviously don't fall into the "easily learned with a little practice" tricks. Doubling a things effectiveness isn't something that comes easily unless you are starting with a really really low expectation or benchmark. The reality is, the character has essentially spent years training to be ready for combat, to be able to use the shield effectively and get a +2 bonus out of it. Training to get even more out of it is something that "realistically" takes years more and still may not be successful. Sometimes there are inheriant limits, fighter only feats allow for growth above and beyond the other classes limits, and that becomes a fighters strength. You are talking about the best of the best of the best when it comes to combat, that IS the fighter class whether it is offensive (weapon spec and gtr focus) or defensive (shield spec or shield mastery) or both (investing probably all their feats). The handful of new feats fighter feats allow the fighter class to stand out from the rest of the combat types.
You don't have to like it, but you have to admit that it sounds a little silly when you say it doesn't make sense after reading it put this way no?
You can only hit the dragon if he stays in your range though, remember the flying part, spell casting and element breathing, plus much longer reach (in addition to considerable AC on his own behalf).
Depending on the demon/devil the tactics will of course vary. But anything with teleport can simply teleport away shoot some arrows hoping for a natural 20. Failing that mortals have to sleep sometime and outsiders don't... he can just wait until the fighter passes out then tie him up and have some fun. Spell like abilities could enter the picture depending on the outsider.
You're right. Fighters suck. If only they were allowed to use magic items or ranged weapons! Or be immune to sleep like wizards!
Well the heavy spiked shield is listed as a one handed weapon, as such it can be used as a one handed weapon, would be my understanding. After all you see such being done all the time in fantasy books/movies/comics/et al.
Ok, by the PFRPG rules - mostly paraphrased - italics for a point later on:
For purposes of making regular attacks a heavy shield (non spiked) is considered a martial bludgeoning weapon. For purposes of penalties it is considered a one-handed weapon. If used as a weapon you lose its AC until your next action (typically next round). An enhancement bonus on the shield does not increase its effectiveness to make the shield bash but it can be made into a magical weapon (ie enchanted as weapon using the appropriate table).
A shield spike adjusts the shield bash properties to piercing damage and increases the damage done by the shield as if it were one size larger. Also there is the note saying an enhancement on the shield does not increase the effectiveness of shield bash attempts, (implication being the enhancement in question was made to increase the shields defensive properties) and that a spiked shield (not the shield spike or the spike on your shield, adding a spike to your shield combines to create a new weapon altogether apparently, who knows it might be a point of interest in the future lol) can be enchanted as a weapon (again using the magic weapon table for costs).
That established we look at the feats:
Improved shield bash - allows you to keep your AC when making shield bash attempts. Easy enough.
Two weapon fighting - allows you to make a single off hand attack with reduced penalties. Again easy enough to follow.
Shield slam - opponent hit with shield bash is affected by an automatic bull rush attempt using your attack roll as the CMB roll. Still easy!
Shield master - You do not take any penalty to attacks when making attacks with a shield when wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s shield bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was an enhancement bonus.
I'm still of the opinion that the magic bonus on a shield affects its shield bonus, otherwise there is no point in having both a +5 magic shield and a +5 magic armor since they both give enhancement bonuses to AC. Also if the enhancement bonus doesn't actually increase the shield bonus, the the enhancement bonus from a belt of strength shouldn't enhance your attack rolls and damage rolls since it isn't your str.
Now we go to magic items (PFRPG 340 for those who care) here are the pertinant lines - italics mine:
...Magic armor bonuses are enhancement bonuses, never rise above +5, and stack with regular armor bonuses (and with shield and magic shield enhancement bonuses)...
Shields: Shield enhancement bonuses stack with armor enhancement bonuses. Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash...
Ok see how it specifically states that they stack when determining AC? This is one of those exceptions to the enchancement bonuses not stacking obviously. Or at least it was enough to warrent a statement stating they did actually stack. Also note that the armor bonus, the magical armor enhancement bonus, the shield bonus and the magical shield enhancement bonus are all distinctly called out and mentioned, they aren't lumped together by shield or armor value. The shield bonus and the enhancement bonus on the shield are indeed two distinct attributes that combine into a subtotal that is provided by the shield and then are combined with other attributes and subtotals to get the final total AC (or variation of - flat footed or touched are calculated using different attributes). Put simply there is a point to having +5 enhancement to shield and +5 enhancement to armor and the rules support it. Just like they support that a bonus from a belt of strength does indead increase your strength and that final total is what you base your "to hit" and "damage" calculations on. As these are given and established facts in the a game I can only suggest that maybe you were too tired or not awake enough and your logic powers are suffering while posting, so let me suggest politely you get some rest ;)
Now the important part, the feat specifically says "shield's shield bonus" AND all other places where a shield's enhancement bonus is mentioned it specifically states (and I actually do quote this) "Shield enhancement bonuses do not act as attack or damage bonuses when the shield is used in a shield bash." (end quote). They also go on to state that you can enchant the shield with Bashing which in turn states that the shield is treated as two sizes larger and acts as a +1 weapon when used to bash (in essence making it a "magical" weapon, apparently just because a shield is +1 for defense purposes, doesn't make it a magical weapon until it actually gets enchanted with a +1 for offensive purposes).
You could also just enchant the shield as a +1 magic weapon but this wouldn't stack with the +1 from Bashing to make it a +2, it would still be a +1 from two equal but differing sources. We then enchant the weapon aspect to +2 which makes it, confusingly enough, a +1 Bashing heavy spiked shield (for purposes of defensive use giving 2+1 to AC) AND +2 heavy spiked shield (for purposes of offensive use giving a +2 to hit and damage). As there are no naming conventions for this type of item as far as I know of I guess something along the lines of "+2 Heavy Spiked +1 Bashing Shield" could be used but it would seem to be WAY too confusing.
To compound the issue we throw in Shield Master... giving yet another different enhancement bonus to figure in when using the above shield. It now has a +1 from Bashing, a +2 from being enchanted as a weapon, and a non magical +2 from its shield bonus (specifically called out by the feat). With all that, it is still simply a +2 to the roll to hit and +2 to damage. Once we enchant the shield further as a magic weapon, bringing it to +3, we have a +1 enhancement from Bashing, a +2 enhancement via shield bonus and a +3 enhancement from enhancing the "weapon" so to speak. The highest bonus is now +3 and that would be the bonus used to adjust the attack and damage rolls. This would be limited just like a normal weapon to being at most a +5(+5 enhancement properties) and wouldn't be any more advantageous than any other weapon in this respect. The largest bonus you could get is +5 to hit and damage though with the investment of 6 feats you could 2WF with a weapon in your main hand taking appropriate penalties and shield bash with your off hand with no penalties. Shield bash is specifically an off hand attack, as in, the rules actually state it to be an off hand attack interestingly enough. That keeps you from using 2 shields (they can't both be off hand to make shield bashes) or making the shield the primary weapon (again it has to be the off hand). All in all looking at it now, they actually covered their bases damn well when writing this up. Unfortunately that also means your opinion is incorrect (I'm trying for something less annoying and possibly insulting than "you're wrong" here lol).
Something that came up when I was researching this all was if the shield spike size increase stacks with Bashing (least likely) or if Bashing overwrites it (more likely).
Off to bed with me, it is way past my bedtime now...
[screams] a 20th level fighter has the following advantages...
+4 to hit/dmg with one class of weapons. then +3/+2/+1 with three other classes. One chosen weapon becomes an auto-crit weapon, with an increased multiplier. (this stacks with improved critical as written)
This is a problem in every one of these so-called discussions: use of the 20th level capstone power as the primary point of comparison with other classes. I'm going to make a "Lame-O" PC base class with d4 HD, 2 skill points/lvl, no bonus feats or class abilities from 1st - 19th level, poor Fort and Will saves. But at 20th level, they can cast meteor swarm at will. This class is obviously overpowered! Under no circumstances should maybe the usefulness be spread downward over the other 19 class levels!
What a class can do at 20th level is more or less immaterial. Even if all of your PCs play to 20th level and survive that long, it's still only 5% of their career. The other 95% of the time, they should be viable as well.
|
[screams] a 20th level fighter has the following advantages...
+4 to hit/dmg with one class of weapons. then +3/+2/+1 with three other classes. One chosen weapon becomes an auto-crit weapon, with an increased multiplier. (this stacks with improved critical as written)This is a problem in every one of these so-called discussions: use of the 20th level capstone power as the primary point of comparison with other classes. I'm going to make a "Lame-O" PC base class with d4 HD, 2 skill points/lvl, no bonus feats or class abilities from 1st - 19th level, poor Fort and Will saves. But at 20th level, they can cast meteor swarm at will. This class is obviously overpowered! Under no circumstances should maybe the usefulness be spread downward over the other 19 class levels!
What a class can do at 20th level is more or less immaterial. Even if all of your PCs play to 20th level and survive that long, it's still only 5% of their career. The other 95% of the time, they should be viable as well.
Seriously, you should have seen my warforged juggernaut. Ate wizards for lunch. Only viable, non-"chain tripper" fighter I ever played at the mid-high levels, but, well, he was immune to most spells, to crits and to sneak attacks. Pure cheese, but not Bo9S cheese...
A very impressive, passionate defense of fighter proprietary rights to feats.
I'm not going to argue this anymore.
I play a fighter. I think fighters in Pathfinder are awesome enough.
I also play a paladin, and I think they are quite awesome enough too.
As for proprietary feats, you and I clearly disagree on what counts as an appropriate or ideal game mechanic.
I never said fighters shouldn't be better at some combat mechanics. While I did say I want other classes to have access to some fighter-only feats, and I still feel that way, the main point of my post was that it's a strange and awkward mechanic to put fighter class abilities on the general feat list that everyone uses, then say "oh, but these feats here, only fighters can take them, so move along, nothing to see here."
I suggest that whatever feats are appropriate as "figher-only" feats should be removed from the feat list and added to the fighter class abilities.
And I further suggest that some of the "fighter-only" feats should be reevaluated, for IMO some of them should be shared out to other classes.
Will every paladin devote 50% of his available feats to improving his shield? Probably not, but I think they should have the option if they want to and not be limited to only 20% and have to watch the fighter show them how real men block with a shield.
You obviously feel quite strongly that the opposite is true, that only fighters are smart enough or dedicated enough or value their lives enough to learn how to block well with a shield, or how to use a shield to reduce the general amount of damage they take.
I won't argue that point. It apparently belongs on the shelf with religion and politics.
But I'm curious. In your long post, you never mentioned the other aspect of my original posting, that if it's going to be "fighter-only" then drop it from the feat list. Don't call it a feat or list it with feats. Stick it on the fighter class and make it a class ability.
Example:
Weapon Specialization: At 4th level, or any level hereafter, a fighter can choose to forego selecting a feat and instead can choose to specialize in any weapon with which he has taken the Weapon Focus feat. This specialization gives the fighter +2 damage with this weapon. Etc., etc.
And do that with each feat that is deemed suitable as a "figher-only" feat - turn them all into class abilities and take them off the feat list.
Any reason not to do this (other than backward compatibility)?
I suggest that whatever feats are appropriate as "figher-only" feats should be removed from the feat list and added to the fighter class abilities.
Yes! We have "rogue talents," and few people object. Why not make weapon training, etc. options in a menu of "fighter talents," and then make all feats by definition equal-access? This would also allow fighter-only tricks that are better than feats, which is one of the main things the class lacks. Weapon Specialization would be a fighter talent, and could scale by class level in the same way that the rogue's bleeding attack scales by sneak attack dice. Something akin to slippery mind could be inserted. Maybe something to allow the fighter to tactically intuit a displaced creature's true position, or a blinking foe's arrival point, or tell the true wizard from the mirror images. He wouldn't get all of these features; he'd have to choose them as options, but he wouldn't be limited to a menu of "things that are just as weak as feats and don't ever scale."
But I'm curious. In your long post, you never mentioned the other aspect of my original posting, that if it's going to be "fighter-only" then drop it from the feat list. Don't call it a feat or list it with feats. Stick it on the fighter class and make it a class ability.
>.> I did (and I refuse to quote myself lol), up in that jumble you'll see this floating around:
The whole arguement would be moot if in the beginning fighters had a list of "Combat Tricks" or some other inane title instead of "bonus feats" to save page count. It is semantics, "because it is a "feat" why can't my non fighter character have it?"
Unfortunately I seriously doubt there is any chance of it changing and there are probably a number of reasons that it isn't a good idea but the people calling the shots would probably be better able to say why not. I personally would like it to change at least in part, that way the "fighter only" items could be unbound from the comparisson of other feats in terms of balance and actually amount to something more than what everyone else can have. Again I'm not saying fighters are horrid, they are solidly better than they were, but they are not up to par especially considering every other class did get significantly better with the "upgrade" to PFRPG.
You say (not you specifically per se) I want my paladin to have access to the fighter only feats shield focus and greater shield focus. I ask why, you say because I want to have a better armor class and like the idea of a shield wielding combatant. I in turn say, cast protection from evil you get the same AC bump and other bonuses, there is no reason to have access to the feats as well, the fighter doesn't have that choice leave the poor guy/gal be. We can even say the spell causes your shield to glow slightly or call attention to it some way, if it makes you feel better.
You say (not you specifically per se) I want my paladin to have access to the fighter only feats shield focus and greater shield focus. I ask why, you say because I want to have a better armor class and like the idea of a shield wielding combatant.
As long as they're no better than feats, let the paladin pick 'em, too. I want more useful options for my fighter, like maybe the ability to trade an attack for movement. Or to hold movements/attacks for use later in the round as immediate actions. Good stuff like that.
Stuff
Sure and using that same cut and paste logic I can make the pathfinder beta book say I'm a living god, doesn't make it true.
The beta also says to add your strength modifier to hit and damage, using your logic you don't get to include the modifier added in from a belt of strength becuase it isn't your strength modifier, it's an enhancement from the belt and the rules don't say you get to add that in.
OR how about this one:
Prestige class requires the ability to cast 2nd level spells. Ok you take a level in the class. During the course of an adventuring day you cast all your second level spells you no longer qualify for your prestige class because you can't cast 2nd level spells anymore. You no longer qualify so you lose all your abilities.
Let me put it to you this way:
1. An enhancement bonus is a modifier.
2. It modifiers something else.
3. The other thing is changed by the amount of the enhancement bonus.
4. That thing now counts as a total of the original plus the enhancement bonus.
5. You use that total when applying effects.
Example:
1. Str 14
2. Add enhancement bonus + 4
3. Str 18 for all effective purposes!
Another example:
1. Heavy Spiked Shield (shield bonus +2)
2. add shield enhancement bonus +1 (now a combined total of +3)
3. Shield bonus +3 for all effective purposes
So far we are probably in agreement.
Here is the flaw in your argument:
You forget that feats supersede "normal" rules.
Now a point by point explanation of my position:
1. Normally you lose your shield bonus to AC when you make an attack with your shield, shield bash changes that, it supersedes the normal rule.
2. Normally you don't add your shield's shield bonus to attacks, shield mastery changes that.
3. Nothing however has changed the fact that enhancement bonuses are effective for all purposes related to the original number .
4. So you add the shield enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus for all purposes related to the shield's shield bonus.
5. Normally you wouldn't add the defensive enhancement bonus from your shield to your attack per normal rules and you still don't , however shield mastery states that you add your shield's shield bonus to attacks, the 'defensive' shield enhancement bonus applies to your shield bonus so in this case your shield bonus is the total of your shield's original bonus + the shield enhancement bonus . You aren't adding the defensive enhancement bonus -- you are adding the shield's shield bonus (which includes the shield enhancement bonus) as an enhancement bonus of it's very own.
6. If the shield has an enhancement bonus as a weapon of its own you will still only use the higher of the two enhancement bonuses you have now (either the one you are getting from shield mastery, or the one the shield had placed on it for offense), as per normal stacking rules.
7. Example: In the case of a Heavy Spiked shield + 5 the shield bonus is (original bonus {+2} + the shield enhancement bonus {+5}) for a total of +7 shield bonus. This is the shield bonus of the shield. Anyone that picks it up gets a shield bonus of +7 to their AC. Now if that person has shield mastery they add that bonus to their shield's attack roll and damage roll.
Ending Statement:
A bonus is a modifier that is added to something else and enhances that original thing by making it bigger/better. It is there after a part of that thing since the bonus has no value of it's own without whatever it modifies.
Sure and using that same cut and paste logic I can make the pathfinder beta book say I'm a living god, doesn't make it true.
The beta also says to add your strength modifier to hit and damage, using your logic you don't get to include the modifier added in from a belt of strength becuase it isn't your strength modifier, it's an enhancement from the belt and the rules don't say you get to add that in.
My "cut and paste" logic says no such thing. I spent 2 hours looking over rules and writing that post sitting bored out of my mind at work. I didn't disagree and spout why I think it should be with no actual evidence from the rules to back my opinion up. Nor did I use willfully ignorant falsehoods like "Strength calulations shouldn't include my +str magical belt" knowing full well it is true. Stating you think it should be one way is something, stating it is something in the face of actual evidence (and decent thorough evidence I might add) is another.
OR how about this one:Prestige class requires the ability to cast 2nd level spells. Ok you take a level in the class. During the course of an adventuring day you cast all your second level spells you no longer qualify for your prestige class because you can't cast 2nd level spells anymore. You no longer qualify so you lose all your abilities.
Again I would hope you know this to be false, the ability to potentially cast a 2nd level spell is what go you into the PrC. The actual having a 2nd level spell memorized is anothing thing all together. Apples and Oranges.
Strength score + strength enhancement bonus stack.
Enhancement1 + Enhancement2 do not stack, Bonuses of the same type DO NOT stack, you take the largest of the type and apply them. It is in the rules, read them, learn them, enjoy the game a little better (or maybe a little less - up to you).
Let me put it to you this way:1. An enhancement bonus is a modifier.
2. It modifiers something else.
3. The other thing is changed by the amount of the enhancement bonus.
4. That thing now counts as a total of the original plus the enhancement bonus.
5. You use that total when applying effects.
1. An enhancement bonus is a modifier of the type ENHANCEMENT.
2. Absolutely.3. Shield (type) bonus + Magic Shield Enhancement (differing type) bonus, these do stack.
4. Above added together equals the shields contribution to your AC.
5. Depending on your character sheet you may or may not have differing boxes for this information, on most there is just one box so you only see the total effect of the shield. By no means does that validate your opinion, it means it is easier to just jot down the single number. As you are typically just interested in the final count this usually means nothing, until the feat changes things.
Example:1. Str 14
2. Add enhancement bonus + 4
3. Str 18 for all effective purposes!
Let us expand your example so that it actually has bearing.
1. Str 14
2. Belt of Strength +6 and under the effect of Mass Bull's Strength +4.
3. Belt Enhancement (type) +6 and Spell Enhancement (SAME type differing origin) +4
4. Str 20 for all effective purposes
You see what you are missing now? Same type bonuses don't stack so you don't end up with a 24 str score effectively, the lower bonus is dropped from the equation/ignored. Now lets go correct the next example.
Another example:1. Heavy Spiked Shield (shield bonus +2)
2. add shield enhancement bonus +1 (now a combined total of +3)
3. Shield bonus +3 for all effective purposes
3. Shield bonus +3 for all effective purposes to determine the AC contribution. Very important distinction. You currently have 2 differing types of bonuses, you won't later on. The feat does change the rules but not like you want it to for your interpretation or are saying it does.
So far we are probably in agreement.Here is the flaw in your argument:
You forget that feats supersede "normal" rules.
No I haven't.
Now a point by point explanation of my position:1. Normally you lose your shield bonus to AC when you make an attack with your shield, shield bash changes that, it supersedes the normal rule.
2. Normally you don't add your shield's shield bonus to attacks, shield mastery changes that.
Here is where you are getting confused, you are adding your shield's "shield bonus" AS AN ENHANCEMENT BONUS. Not your shield's total bonus, not your shield's shield bonus and magical shield bonus, not any other combination of differing modifiers or bonuses. Your shield's shield bonus is the only statistic being added. Your shield bonus is also now an enhancement bonus when making attacks, this is what the feat changes and why the rest of your argument ends up being wrong.
3. Nothing however has changed the fact that enhancement bonuses are effective for all purposes related to the original number .
No the feat has changed it, when making a shield bash attack you have (1) Shield bonus ENHANCEMENT (type) + BAB + STR modifier for an unmodified non-magical shield.
4. So you add the shield enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus for all purposes related to the shield's shield bonus.
For purposes of determining AC this is true, for purposes of using the shield as weapon via the feat this is false. What you actually have is:
+ X "Magic shield" Enhancement for AC (type) + "Shield bonus" ENHANCEMENT (same type - as per the Shield Master feat which has changed things) for attacks, different function, different equations.Now the feat says that when making an attack with a shield I get to add my shield's shield bonus as an enhancement bonus to the attack. The rules also say that the enhancement AC bonus does not get added to the the equation. You have a shield bonus that is being factored into two differing equations:
To hit: BAB + STR mod + Shield ENHANCEMENT (type)
bonus +d20 = result
AND
AC: 10 + DEX Mod + Shield bonus + Magic shield ENHANCEMENT (type) bonus
Where Shield ENHANCEMENT bonus = Shield bonus
5. Normally you wouldn't add the defensive enhancement bonus from your shield to your attack per normal rules and you still don't , however shield mastery states that you add your shield's shield bonus to attacks, the 'defensive' shield enhancement bonus applies to your shield bonus so in this case your shield bonus is the total of your shield's original bonus + the shield enhancement bonus . You aren't adding the defensive enhancement bonus -- you are adding the shield's shield bonus (which includes the shield enhancement bonus) as an enhancement bonus of it's very own.
Wrong see above.
6. If the shield has an enhancement bonus as a weapon of its own you will still only use the higher of the two enhancement bonuses you have now (either the one you are getting from shield mastery, or the one the shield had placed on it for offense), as per normal stacking rules.
No, the one enhancement for AC never comes into play when using the shield bash with shield mastery, again look above for the logic and correct math showing why. You would only ever factor in the Shield's Shield Bonus (as an ENHANCEMENT bonus due to the feat changing the rules) or the Magical Weapon ENHANCEMENT bonus, the largest of the two overwrites the lower "as per the normal stacking rules."
7. Example: In the case of a Heavy Spiked shield + 5 the shield bonus is (original bonus {+2} + the shield enhancement bonus {+5}) for a total of +7 shield bonus. This is the shield bonus of the shield.
It isn't the "shield bonus" of the shield... The shield bonus of the shield is and will always be a static +2. What is the enhancement bonus enchanting? Is it enchanting the shield's AC or is it enchanting the shield as a weapon? It makes a difference. Sorta like how enchanting one side of a double weapon doesn't influence the other side, there are two distinct and separate identities to the shield and the bonuses don't cross over.
Anyone that picks it up gets a shield bonus of +7 to their AC.
Read above, now you have two differing scenarios...
(1) If the enchancement is being enchanted and treating the shield as armor you are correct, you end up with a +2+5 bonus to your shield and it is far cheaper to enchant.Totals:
Defense: Shield (type) bonus +2 + Magic shield ENHANCEMENT bonus +5 = +7 subtotal AC from shield
Offense: Shield ENHANCEMENT (type granted by the feat) bonus +2 = +2 to hit and damage
(2) If the enhancement is being put on for offensive purposes, treating the shield as a weapon, your AC is only +2 BUT you get a +5 ENHANCEMENT to hit and damage when making a shield bash attempt. It also costs twice as much.
Defense: Shield (type) bonus +2 = +2 subtotal AC from shield
Offense: Shield ENHANCEMENT (type granted by the feat) bonus +2 + Magic weapon ENHANCEMENT (same type) bonus +5 = +5 to hit and damage
Now if that person has shield mastery they add that bonus to their shield's attack roll and damage roll.
No, no, no. When a person with the shield master feat picks it up the only thing that changes is the shield's shield bonus becomes an ENHANCEMENT type bonus added to the attack. It doesn't change that there are TWO different types of ENHANCEMENT bonuses (as armor or weapon) possible for the shield nor does it allow those ENHANCEMENT bonuses to cross over the barrier between ARMOR and WEAPON and it certainly doesn't make it possible for 2 ENHANCEMENT bonuses to stack.
At the most basic level the feat says when you make an off hand attack with a non magic shield you get an effective enhancement bonus on the attack roll that is equal to the shield's shield bonus. No more no less.
Ending Statement:A bonus is a modifier that is added to something else and enhances that original thing by making it bigger/better. It is there after a part of that thing since the bonus has no value of it's own without whatever it modifies.
A bonus is modifier that is added to something else, it is however NOT a part of that thing. Bonuses are differing and modular in nature and multiple bonuses of the same type do not add to each other. Certain conditions remove bonuses from the total (Flat footed does not include DEX mod, Touch does not include the subtotals from your shield or armor) and some add. That means your final statement is, again, incorrect. Just because you only write down an amount on your character sheet does not mean that that is the only number that exists or will ever be taken into consideration, it is the number most commonly refered to. It still is composed of differing bonuses which may or may not be adjusted further when "special circumstances" occur.
If you are here to assert your opinion is correct with false logic, examples with omissions because they look to help your argument or erroneous liberties with well established rules, I am probably going to annoy you. If you are here to actually see how the mechanics of the subject work RAW (if not RAI) maybe you'll learn something from the posts.
Hell, if I'd written the feat, you'd get the shield's enhancement bonus as an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage, but not the shield's base AC [shield] bonus. Because getting better damage for a larger shield, and then getting better damage on top of that for getting a better AC bonus for having a larger shield (double-dipping on size, if you will), Just Makes No Sense To Me.
(...) It isn't the "shield bonus" of the shield... The shield bonus of the shield is and will always be a static +2.(...)
Except when you apply the Shield Focus and/or Greater Shield Focus feat, which says that 'increase the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using by +1' and (for GSF) 'This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Shield Focus.' This should reasonably be a Shield bonus, and should be added into the equation of Shield Mastery.
The largest bonus you could get is +5 to hit and damage though with the investment of 6 feats you could 2WF with a weapon in your main hand taking appropriate penalties and shield bash with your off hand with no penalties.
As I said before, I am not sure that the main hand takes penalties with the Shield Slam option, since 1) the Shield Slam entry specifically says that you take the penalties for an off-hand attack with the Shield, but does not mention about the main hand (while the entries for double weapons specifically say so), and 2) the Shield Master feat would lead to the strange situation where an off-hand attack would be better than a main hand attack (penalty of 0 with the off-hand, and penalty of -2 or -4 with the main hand, according to the shield used in the off-hand). I see the whole situation more similar to a creature mixing Manufactured Weapons and Natural Weapons (the manufactured weapons never take penalties, while the natural weapons take a -5 or a -2 (if Multiattack feat is taken)).
Aside from that, I completely agree with you - or at least, this could be the better way to handle the feats/items/bonuses anyway (IMHO) (including the 'just stick with a single attack with the Shield Slam even if you take Imp.TWF and Gr.TWF' - but again, I already said this...)
Just my 2c.
Hell, if I'd written the feat, you'd get the shield's enhancement bonus as an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage, but not the shield's base AC [shield] bonus. Because getting better damage for a larger shield, and then getting better damage on top of that for getting a better AC bonus for having a larger shield (double-dipping on size, if you will), Just Makes No Sense To Me.
Getting the enhancement bonus would be a bad bad thing balancewise. For the simple reason that magical weapons cost twice what an equal magical armor/shield piece does. Taking this feat tree in essence means you are using the shield as a weapon and are forced to cough up the gold just like any other 2WF (1H & light, double weapons, etc.) You don't get to "skirt around the issue," by applying the AC bonus to attacks on the cheap. Like I said before it is like a double weapon, one side provides defense and has to be enchanted appropriately, the other side is offense and has the harser costs of a weapon.
A shield bonus is a static number and by the time you can actually get this feat (11th level) is in line , if not a little behind, with what you could have as a magical weapon counterpart. Off hand weapons are typically less powerful than main hand ones (unless you are trying to make life easier on your self and make the attack roles equal I guess lol). Also note the penalties & bonuses by shield type, small shield is a light weapon (and I think has a lower penalty as an off hand) while a hevay shield is a 1H weapon (and would have a larger penalty as off hand), this would seem to lessen the normal 2WF penalties - Granted this is moot as the one feat says you don't take penalties when making shield bashes. Maybe it is one of those things that slipped by the editorial staff, changed one rule in some way but didn't change the tree all the way through, we won't know until the final book comes out. One of the obvious drawbacks is that it isn't actually magical (strictly speaking from the feat, not taking equipment into account) so it wouldn't bypass DR but the other side of that is (Kinda small I admit) even in a Dispel Magic/AMZ fight the feat tree continues to provide a bonus to those who invested 6 feats into it.
Good points. I guess what it boils down to is that I just plain don't like the shield-bashing feats. I don't like:
(a) TWF with no penalty;
(b) Attack with hand and still have full shield to AC;
(c) Shields dealing more damage than weapons;
(d) Double-dipping on shield size for extra damage;
(e) Lack of any viable defensive style for shield use.
What the feats do is relegate TWF as a rogues-only style (and Paladins, if you use the full-round smiting variants), leaving weapon-and-shield-slam or THW-and-animated-shield as the "default" styles for fighters.
Just to point out the spiked heavy shield by itself isn't an amazing weapon -- it's not until the bashing enchantment and the feat tree is added that it suddenly becomes a powerhouse.
And that feat tree is significant in cost: Two weapon fighting, Improved two weapon fighting, Shield bash, shield slam and shield mastery eat up 5 feats total, plus require a Dex of 17. 5 feats is significant investment (even for a fighter but much more for any other class).
Shield still only has a 20 threat range...while other TWFs have either 19-20 or 18-20 threat ranges....
So arguing that sword & board or TH + animated shield become the default, may be something which metagamers do, but not every one is a metagamer...I like TWF the most...but then again, I also like balanced characters, I almost never play a character with a 20 stat at 1st level...but that's me I guess...
|
|
My "cut and paste" logic says no such thing. I spent 2 hours looking over rules and writing that post sitting bored out of my mind at work...
For what it is worth, it's the way I read it. In some ways pfRPG by allowing the the offensive or defensive enchanting of shields have added another layer of book keeping. Shields with split stats...
S.
My "cut and paste" logic says no such thing. I spent 2 hours looking over rules and writing that post sitting bored out of my mind at work...
For what it is worth, it's the way I read it. In some ways pfRPG by allowing the the offensive or defensive enchanting of shields have added another layer of book keeping. Shields with split stats...
S.
My main arguement with what you got is that all "By the Book" there isn't a 'shield enhancement bonus' just a shield with an enhancement bonus --
So if I have 10 dex a heavy shield + 2 and full plate mail + 2 my AC by what you've shown is:
10 + 2 (shield) + 8 (armor) + 2 enhancement (shield) + 2 enhancement (armor) = 22 AC since I can only have one enhancement bonus.
or to hit with a masterwork sword and a belt of strength +2 and Str 14:
BAB + 2 (str) + 2 (enhancement bonus strength) + 1 (enhancement bonus sword) = BAB + 4 since I can only have one enhancement bonus.
*******
In all actuality the book never tells us how enhancement bonuses are applied, how complex stacking works (technically you only get your strength modifier to attack, not any enhancement bonus on strength) or anything of the sort.
Maybe this will help:
It's very important to recognize that a shield bonus is a bonus.
If you add a bonus to a non-bonus, like a real stat such as Strength or AC, the bonus modifies the real stat.
Add a +4 enhancement bonus to your STR, and your STR is now 4 points higher.
But when you add a bonus to a bonus, they don't ever combine. If they did, we would never worry about stacking issues.
So when you add a +4 enhancement bonus to a +2 shield bonus, you really have two separate, uncombined, stackable (different bonus types) bonuses on this one shield.
Another way to look at it: you are not really adding the enhancement bonus to the shield at all. The shield has a +2 shield bonus and a +4 enhancement bonus, and both of those bonuses are added to your AC. The AC is the real stat these bonuses modify.
Does that make it any clearer?
I've read this post with interest from the beginning. The further I get into the post, the more I am convinced of the following:
1) Several shield feats take fighting with a weapon and shield in the wrong direction.
2) The way that many of the shield feats being discussed are written has actually complicated play.
3) The Prerequisites are set up such that it pigeon-holes characters who take it into a very narrow style of combat, which to me, is uninteresting.
Except when you apply the Shield Focus and/or Greater Shield Focus feat, which says that 'increase the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using by +1' and (for GSF) 'This bonus stacks with the bonus granted by Shield Focus.' This should reasonably be a Shield bonus, and should be added into the equation of Shield Mastery.
Agreed but this is a specific instance and a feat (well 2) so it can break a "rule." Toss in that it is a class specific feat which limits it to the "iconic" fighter... Fighters fight and if they blow the 8 feats they can now fight really really well with a shield in the off hand. It is in line with the class, is an ability that is nice but not horribly overpowering, I'd call it a "gimme" lol. If by investing almost all of their "class abilties" they become great shield combatants and have a couple +'s (well actually just +2) over the rest of the classes... I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear on the matter lol.
As I said before, I am not sure that the main hand takes penalties with the Shield Slam option, since 1) the Shield Slam entry specifically says that you take the penalties for an off-hand attack with the Shield, but does not mention about the main hand (while the entries for double weapons specifically say so), and 2) the Shield Master feat would lead to the strange situation where an off-hand attack would be better than a main hand attack (penalty of 0 with the off-hand, and penalty of -2 or -4 with the main hand, according to the shield used in the off-hand). I see the whole situation more similar to a creature mixing Manufactured Weapons and Natural Weapons (the manufactured weapons never take penalties, while the natural weapons take a -5 or a -2 (if Multiattack feat is taken)).Aside from that, I completely agree with you - or at least, this could be the better way to handle the feats/items/bonuses anyway (IMHO) (including the 'just stick with a single attack with the Shield Slam even if you take Imp.TWF and Gr.TWF' - but again, I already said this...)
Just my 2c.
As the feat tree has 2WF for the initial prereq and all the feats after pertain solely to shield bashes as off hand attacks, there is no reason the appropriate 2WF penalties to apply. Addressing your points in order:
1) Shield slam doesn't modify 2WF mechanics (like Imp 2WF says when 2WF you get a second off hand attack for example), but it has it that feat as a prereq, so all appropriate penalties are still in effect for 2WF. What shield slam does do is allow you to make a special attack with your shield bash which is by definition your "off hand weapon" (again the implication is 2wf, no "off hand" unless you are using 2wf rules and a full attack action).Let us take a 6th level character who has full BAB, 2WF and a 1H off hand weapon, they go to make a full attack and get the following attack sequence:
main hand [full BAB (-4 2wf)] -> main hand [full BAB -5 irr atk & -4 2wf]
and
off hand [full BAB (-4 2wf)]
Now add Shield Slam to the list of feats:
main hand [full BAB (-4 2wf)] -> main hand [full BAB -5 irr atk & -4 2wf]
and
off hand [full BAB (-4 2wf)] +automatic bullrush attempt(shield slam)
As for it being mentioned in the items description like double weapon... There is no reason to, it states specifically that light/heavy shield can be used as an off hand weapon that is treated as a light/1h weapon repectively. As an off hand weapon, you have to be 2WF'ing and you cannot make main hand attacks with it. So we continue on with the tree to see how everything adds up...
Last feat, Shield Master, states (quoted from PFRPG) "You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. " I have already dealt with the second part thus the ooc. One interesting thing about the statement is that is specifically calls out you have to have another weapon, again reinforcing the 2WF'ing (and the penalties that come with them). Now the important part, it says attack rolls made with a shield. If it said "attacks while using a shield", or "any attacks while using a shield" I might say the no penalty at all arguement could be viable. It would still be one of those ambiguous rules where RAW vs. RAI could be argued ad nauseum and comes down to poor editing and needing faq's/errata later.
Thankfully (count on Paizo for quality as usual) it actually states, attack rolls with a shield, and that is fairly specific. This does create the odd situation where off hand attacks are going to have a better attack roll than main hand attacks like you mentioned. With all 6 feats to make use of the shield fighting at the minimum level(Shield master and all the 2WF feats) you end up with the attack routines with an unmodified shield:
Heavy shield (-4 penalty & +2 shield enhancement)
7/2/-3 main hand and 13/8/3 off hand(each causing a bullrush attempt)
Or
Light Shield (-2 penalty & +1 shield enhancement)
9/4/-1 main hand and 12/7/2 off hand(each causing a bullrush attempt)
Again my personal interpretation would be just one single attack with the off hand, but by the wording this is a legitimate interpretation by RAW. This is definitely a more powerful take on it, you have a possible 1d8 + .5(str mod) off hand attack (size increases typically don't stack so Bashing causing 2 size increases would overwrite the shield spike increasing size by one step so starting at medium size: 1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8 I believe) with an additional automatic bull rush at no cost. In BETA it was stated that Bullrush would be a standard action so in that case I would say it was outright broken, however awhile back someone linked/quoted where Jason has said it will revert back to a "per attack" option again. In effect the Shield Slam feat became "Greater Improved Bullrush" allowing you to do damage as well, still a bit too powerful for my take on game balance (and why I proposed the Imp 2WF and Gtr 2WF shouldn't increase the feat tree as it stands) but with the feat investment and amount of money you have to pump into it I'm not so sure I'd be able to call it broken yet.
Good points. I guess what it boils down to is that I just plain don't like the shield-bashing feats. I don't like:
(a) TWF with no penalty;
(b) Attack with hand and still have full shield to AC;
(c) Shields dealing more damage than weapons;
(d) Double-dipping on shield size for extra damage;
(e) Lack of any viable defensive style for shield use.What the feats do is relegate TWF as a rogues-only style (and Paladins, if you use the full-round smiting variants), leaving weapon-and-shield-slam or THW-and-animated-shield as the "default" styles for fighters.
If RAI is that you are given a single extra attack (a), (b), (c), (d) are all non issues.
(a) You aren't getting full offensive benefits and missing out on 2 other attacks with the off hand so an extra on the off hand +2/+4 for a single attack isn't really a balance issue.(b) Again if RAI is a single extra attack, not so much an issue. Advanced flurry of blows and the feat rapid shot all grant a single attack so it isn't like this is anything groundbreaking and you are still taking the penalty on your main hand attacks.
(c) Two size increases via Bashing becomes 1d8 on the off hand, the same as a long sword (and 1H if using the heavy shield for more damage so the larger penalty to your primary "to hit" just like the sword as well).
(d) Same as above, if you using the shield as a weapon (and enchanting it as such) you save money in the beginning (+1 or +2 equivalent though non magical) but as you level up you are going to have to spend the money on the +1 and +2 to eventually get the +3 or more to keep it competitive just like any other off hand weapon. Basically all it does is free up some resources up front for those characters who are gear dependant and typically strapped for cash anyways, in essence like a deferred payment.
As for (e) Only a lack until Paizo puts something else out. BETA & extras they have posted are the foundation. There are many different views on what a defensive style should be and alot of hurdles and balance issues. And it is an old adage that sometimes the best defense is a good offense (especially true in a game like this). Also I have seen posts from Paizo staff saying they are firmly against denial tactics which pretty much destroys many things a "defensive style" would hope to accomplish.
The 2WF feats themselves don't relegate anything to anyone, the class features do. If a sorcerer could get 5d6 extra damage on thier attacks, you'd be saying it was relagated to rogues, paladins and sorcerers. The feats aren't the problem in that case, the class mechanics granting the exceptional results are. A 2WF Shield master could just as easily be a rogue or paladin, it is just feat intensive so it becomes a matter of if it is worth doing over other options with limited feat allowances.
Maybe this will help:
It's very important to recognize that a shield bonus is a bonus.
If you add a bonus to a non-bonus, like a real stat such as Strength or AC, the bonus modifies the real stat.
Add a +4 enhancement bonus to your STR, and your STR is now 4 points higher.
But when you add a bonus to a bonus, they don't ever combine. If they did, we would never worry about stacking issues.
So when you add a +4 enhancement bonus to a +2 shield bonus, you really have two separate, uncombined, stackable (different bonus types) bonuses on this one shield.
Another way to look at it: you are not really adding the enhancement bonus to the shield at all. The shield has a +2 shield bonus and a +4 enhancement bonus, and both of those bonuses are added to your AC. The AC is the real stat these bonuses modify.
Does that make it any clearer?
Yes and no, It still doesn't help with the armor and shield that are both magical (since they both give enhancement bonus to AC only one gets added), and it's not RAW because there is no RAW on how modifiers stack other than like types do not stack.
Also it never states anywhere that a bonus is treated differently when applied to different things, and definitely doesn't state that an enhancement bonus changes how it works on just because it's on strength and not on a shield.
You're telling me that it works this way on strength basically because you want it too, and it doesn't work the same way even though it's the exact same bonus on shields because you don't want it to do so.
It's probably too late for the pathfinder RPG book, but a rules clarification would be really nice from the people in charge...
However I can see reason to leave it as ambiguous as it is now: Without exact explanation multiple answers work -- I am not wrong, I'm simply not right -- you are not wrong, you aren't right either though, as the rules don't actually say one way or another.
Separate thought:
In my opinion Strength is no more a 'real' stat than the shield bonus is... in some ways less so, I can quantify the shield bonus, the strength is a rating on a very vague scale.
|
|
well I think, that a good sword & board figther it is not made on dexterity, so the TWF is out of topis the requirements sholud be of combat experience I mind BAB. the feats I see on this forum are really kickass but think about it dex is not in need as TWF. I personally like the sword & board style but the are no good feats or even trees taht I saw usefull. I hope to se more interaction on the batle aspects of the game for the final version, a litle love for the figther, wich is better now but there is stil a long way to put more balance in game, especially spellcasters vs, combat oriented, things aboit fulla tacks, movement & of course super deadly spells that take only one standar action. those are my two pennys.
|
|
Yes and no, It still doesn't help with the armor and shield that are both magical (since they both give enhancement bonus to AC only one gets added)
You have to consider what is being enhanced. The +4 STR belt enhances the character specifically, the +4 enhancement to the shield affects the shield specifically (not the character), the +4 enhancement to the armor affects the armor specifically (not the character).
So you don't have armor bonus + shield bonus +8 enhancement bonus to AC what you have is (armor bonus +4) + (shield bonus +4). The total of +8 from the enhancements are not directly added to the characters AC, they are only added to the character indirectly due to the two sources of the armor and the shield.
See the difference?
S.
|
Wow lots of disagreement on shield bonuses! lol Never thought I would see this one.
I can see both sides of the argument. I am going to chime in with my interpretation and try to confuse everyone! lol
I am going to found my opinion not so much on the rulebook, but rather the character sheet.
Under AC, it lists your total AC as equal to 10+ Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dex Modifier + Size Modifier+ Natural Armor + Deflection Modifier + Misc Modifier
Now, I would think that the vast majority of all players and develops, enter a Shield's Bonus and Enhancement Modifier in the space listed for Shied Modifier. So in the case of the examples above that would be a +7.
When I am playing the game I am going to look into that box for my shield modifier and I am going to apply +7. I am not going to go breaking apart the modifier into component pieces.
Honestly, I could care less what the actual rules say. I think this is what is intended and I will play it that way.
After all, if you go strictly by the rules in the Beta, your total to use in Combat Maneuvers is d20 + BAB x2 + Str Modifier x2. That is clearly NOT what was intended, but that IS what the rules say.
That being said, you can rule it however you want in your game. Makes no difference to me. This is how I will rule. If you want to rule differently, then no problem. I can live with that.
|
|
Under AC, it lists your total AC as equal to 10+ Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dex Modifier + Size Modifier+ Natural Armor + Deflection Modifier + Misc Modifier
Now, I would think that the vast majority of all players and develops, enter a Shield's Bonus and Enhancement Modifier in the space listed for Shied Modifier.
Sir you are most wise - the character sheet!
As can be seen that it doesn't have a separate "enhancement bonus" modifier - only armor and shield. The enhancement to either of these items effects the item directly with an indirect effect of improving the characters AC. No breaking of the "same modifiers" don't stack rule.
S.
Wow lots of disagreement on shield bonuses! lol Never thought I would see this one.
I can see both sides of the argument. I am going to chime in with my interpretation and try to confuse everyone! lol
I am going to found my opinion not so much on the rulebook, but rather the character sheet.
Under AC, it lists your total AC as equal to 10+ Armor Bonus + Shield Bonus + Dex Modifier + Size Modifier+ Natural Armor + Deflection Modifier + Misc Modifier
Now, I would think that the vast majority of all players and develops, enter a Shield's Bonus and Enhancement Modifier in the space listed for Shied Modifier. So in the case of the examples above that would be a +7.
When I am playing the game I am going to look into that box for my shield modifier and I am going to apply +7. I am not going to go breaking apart the modifier into component pieces.
Honestly, I could care less what the actual rules say. I think this is what is intended and I will play it that way.
After all, if you go strictly by the rules in the Beta, your total to use in Combat Maneuvers is d20 + BAB x2 + Str Modifier x2. That is clearly NOT what was intended, but that IS what the rules say.
That being said, you can rule it however you want in your game. Makes no difference to me. This is how I will rule. If you want to rule differently, then no problem. I can live with that.
See I know what you are saying but that is the reason I explained the character sheet is a summary. Different characer sheets have different layouts. The rules of the game don't change because of the character sheet, the character sheet shows a summary of generally relevant items and calculations to make it easier to reference when playing the game, not every pertinent piece of information is listed. Lets take one possibility:
You finish adventuring and come back to town, that night while everyone is updating you decide to pay money to enchant your shield with an additional +1, DM okays it and lose the appropriate gold and pencil in +1 next to the shield in the list of equipment. You run out to grab a drink and start socializing. Night goes on and you all say good bye. Next gaming session you get into gaming and after awhile and a few encounters the DM, who has the unenviable job of keeping track of all the rules and making sure you all abide by them, says something like "isn't that the same AC you were giving me last week??" You look and realize even though you wrote down you have an X+1 shield and spent the gold, you never changed that "special little shield AC box" that you always refer to.The reality and what is on your character sheets can be two completely different things (which incidentally is usually considered "cheating"). If you need something more definintive as to why that is simply not the case, what about an antimagic zone? You are telling me because the shield box says +7 (+5 heavy shield) you continue to get +7 from the shield even though the magic shield enchancement is not supposed to be in effect? Your character sheet says +7 so that is the end all be all? Any competent gamer knows that isn't the case, it should only be a +2 bonus, the character sheet says otherwise though, is that what you are going to tell the DM?
If a character sheet showed all applicable information it would be a spreadsheet of formulae and listed repeatedly for every various situation possible in game... Much longer than most complicated character sheets available for just the statistics for the game mechanics and character. To put it another way, in school we had an advanced class, our teacher allowed us a single sheet of paper to be used as reference tool when taking tests. In D&D the game rules are the "text books" we used throughout the class, the encounters are the "tests" and the character sheets are the "reference sheets" the players have when taking the "tests." Does this help you see any clearer?
However at this point the shield bonus is +7.
Which leads us back to using +7 as the shield bonus.
Truthfully I am beginning to see what you are saying with the enhancement bonuses stefan, however I'm going on the idea that the shield bonus is the shield bonus total. Like Krome says the shield doesn't have a line for shield bonus and shield enhancement bonus, just shield bonus.
At the point the shield's enhancement bonus is enhancing the shield bonus I would (and have and will continue to) say that the shield bonus is a total, after all the +5 shield's shield bonus isn't just +2... it's +7 after enhancement. The shield mastery feat doesn't say you don't include any modifiers to the shield bonus, just that you take the shield's shield bonus as an enhancement modifier to attack and damage.
Just like the rules for attacking don't say you take only your strength modifier and not the enhancement modifier on your strength. It's a sum total.
If I'm going to apply it that way in one aspect of the game I'm inclined to continue applying it that way in all aspects of the game.
(BTW: Did you know the only way to get an actual enhancement bonus to AC is the thicken skin power from expanded Psionics? Everything else either enhances shield, armor, or natural armor bonuses... only the Thicken Skin power stacks that it gives an enhancement bonus to AC itself!)
My "cut and paste" logic says no such thing. I spent 2 hours looking over rules and writing that post sitting bored out of my mind at work...
For what it is worth, it's the way I read it. In some ways pfRPG by allowing the the offensive or defensive enchanting of shields have added another layer of book keeping. Shields with split stats...
S.
In truth there isn't more book keeping, just confusion for those who aren't used to it. In 3.5 when you had a shield (which couldn't be used as an effective weapon at all) and added a spike (attached to that item that couldn't be a weapon but then became a weapon), you enchanted the spike seperately, you had a shield that had an "offensive" attribute and a "defensive attribute". For all effective purposes PFRPG just stream lined the process, end results are the same, which was one of the main things they set out to do.
A shield with split stats isn't anything new, they have just tried to make a little more sense of it. A shield can now be used as a weapon as is without having to affix a shield spike, the shield spike just makes it better.
Yes and no, It still doesn't help with the armor and shield that are both magical (since they both give enhancement bonus to AC only one gets added), and it's not RAW because there is no RAW on how modifiers stack other than like types do not stack.
Also it never states anywhere that a bonus is treated differently when applied to different things, and definitely doesn't state that an enhancement bonus changes how it works on just because it's on strength and not on a shield.
You're telling me that it works this way on strength basically because you want it too, and it doesn't work the same way even though it's the exact same bonus on shields because you don't want it to do so.
It's probably too late for the pathfinder RPG book, but a rules clarification would be really nice from the people in charge...
Unfortunately for you it isn't because he/she wants it to be that way, its the way it is, per the game designers who wrote the book. If you could bother to do the research and look back to the origins of D&D 3.0, the stacking rules were one of the main reasons for the 3.5 revision. As stacking rules were hashed out way back then, there is no need for PFRPG to remake the wheel, the rules clarifications you are asking have already been done. The decision was made that shield and armor bonuses do stack while ranged weapon and ammunition bonues do not, among other things.
How about this - It is like buying a stock car, putting in a racing clutch, turbo chargers and adding a new paint job, they are modifications. If you bought a mustang it is still a mustang, if you bought a civic it is still a civic, just with modifications. PFRPG is still 3.5, the rules you are questioning are still the same as they were in 3.5.
However I can see reason to leave it as ambiguous as it is now: Without exact explanation multiple answers work -- I am not wrong, I'm simply not right -- you are not wrong, you aren't right either though, as the rules don't actually say one way or another.
I don't like that I have to say it this way, but for the sake of brevity, simply put you are wrong on this specific topic. The rules do say so.
However at this point the shield bonus is +7.
Which leads us back to using +7 as the shield bonus.
Again, no, the total contribution to AC from the shield and its separate and distinct modifiers is 7. That sum of base number and modifier is what we write in the box for easy reference. As there are only two numbers of interest typically (shield bonus and magic shield enchancement bonus) and you should be able to discern one from the other (simple subtraction; +7 total in the box next to "+5 heavy shield" means +2 for the shield bonus) there is no real reason to list them seperately. If you are incapable of this level of math you probably shouldn't be playing the game, let's be honest here. Anyways, let's repeat that: The shield bonus is +2 with a magical shield enhancement bonus of +5 which comes to a subtotal we write in down as +7 in the shield box. No "dumbed down" character sheet I have seen has ever had a separation like this, it takes up room and is often unnecessary for most characters (Shields aren't even used by everyone). But the auto calculating sheets I have used do. You punch in each type of modifier for each calculated total (armor, shield, stats, movement, attack types, etc.) and it sums them up and displays the total in each box. My sheet does show the individual statistics, yours doesn't, either way the rules aren't influenced by the character sheet...
Truthfully I am beginning to see what you are saying with the enhancement bonuses stefan, however I'm going on the idea that the shield bonus is the shield bonus total. Like Krome says the shield doesn't have a line for shield bonus and shield enhancement bonus, just shield bonus.
Up until this point it typically hasn't been needed. The only common situation that you would have needed to discern the shield bonus from the magical shield enhancement bonus is when magic was somehow removed from the equation. Your shield is targeted and dispelled, you are only left with the actual shield bonus of +2 when determining your AC now. You walk into an AMZ your shield loses its magical properties and you are left with only a +2 shield bonus from your shield. At this point I'm going to let the thirsty horse stare at the water.
At the point the shield's enhancement bonus is enhancing the shield bonus I would (and have and will continue to) say that the shield bonus is a total, after all the +5 shield's shield bonus isn't just +2... it's +7 after enhancement. The shield mastery feat doesn't say you don't include any modifiers to the shield bonus, just that you take the shield's shield bonus as an enhancement modifier to attack and damage.
I have covered this already please re-read.
Just like the rules for attacking don't say you take only your strength modifier and not the enhancement modifier on your strength. It's a sum total.
Ahh, but the rules do say you DO NOT apply a shield's enhancement bonus to attack rolls... So we have the rules saying you apply the shield bonus to attack rolls and to not apply the magic shield enhancement bonus to attack rolls.
If I'm going to apply it that way in one aspect of the game I'm inclined to continue applying it that way in all aspects of the game.
Were you not the one who pointed out it was an exception to the rule as a feat? You are now arguing that the feat changes the normal rules globally and is not the exception?
(BTW: Did you know the only way to get an actual enhancement bonus to AC is the thicken skin power from expanded Psionics? Everything else either enhances shield, armor, or natural armor bonuses... only the Thicken Skin power stacks that it gives an enhancement bonus to AC itself!).
Psionics are notorious for the theme of being "self reliant" not depending on any other outside forces or gear. That design choice allows psionics to have a mechanically and thematically fitting ability that can stack with existing statistics. There is no "metamorphic armor" magical enhancement like there is the wildshape magic armor enhancement. If a psionic character uses metamorph (it loses its bonuses from gear) and has an ability that increases natural armor (aka the spell barkskin) the power has little to no use as only one (nat AC from metamorph) or the other (Psi version of Barkskin augmented to the point it was better) will work. By enhancing the AC directly it stacks and retains its usefulness. Also core rules have no race with an actual natural AC, psionics had Tri-keen who did have natural AC, they needed the power to be useful for all races printed so a strict enchancement bonus fits the requirements as well.
|
|
Truthfully I am beginning to see what you are saying with the enhancement bonuses stefan, however I'm going on the idea that the shield bonus is the shield bonus total.
And that is completely your right. As long as you and your group agree and have a fun time playing the game it really doesn't matter.
S.
skylancer4 I appreciate you still trying to set me on the path of light and goodness, but you are at the point of "blah blah blah do it my way".
I don't agree, it doesn't make sense (to me) and it's not happening.
|
|
I'm real trouble here seeing why this is in any way controversial.
A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC.
Enhancement bonuses enhance something. A character with a Combat Reflexes and a natural Dex of 14 wearing a belt of Dexterity +4 can make 4 additional attacks of opportunity each round, not two, because the enhancement bonus from the belt actually changes the base statistic. The enhancement bonus on a shield - barring specific weirdness like enchanting the spikes as weapons - adds to the shield's own bonus. Trying to separate out the effect of an enhancement bonus from the base stat without the bonus is a distinction the game makes nowhere else - why in the world would it happen here? (It happened one other place in 3.5 - headbands of intellect. Note that that exception has also been closed in Pathfinder.) Why is this debate still going on?
"A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC."
It does not increase the actual shield bonus value...It increases the amount of AC granted by the shield, the two values (shield bonus and enhancement bonus) are mutually exclusive but are additive in effect. If the feat said that you were to add the "shield's enhancement bonus" to the attack roll, would you be telling me that would include the "shield bonus" as well?
As for light and goodness and "do it my way"... I'm reading the rules and am going to try to play by the rules. As I can't say I know the intention of the rules all I can do is use logic and reading comprehension to deduce the result when something is vague. If you have no desire to do so and wish to play the game the way you want, all the more power to you. Do what you have to to have fun.
When the rules say you have values A and B which equal C, and that B is never added to X but you could have a value Z that would be, then a feat says you can add A to X..... I'm going to question why someone is under the misconception that C is supposed to be added to X.
As this is the internet and things don't get conveyed well I'm not going to assume they are stupid/incompetent/unable to read and try to explain things in the hopes it is a misunderstanding or maybe ignorance (in the literal sense). I'm pretty thorough and this tends to help, however if someone doesn't get it after a few attempts I'd have to say there is usually something else going on.
It is fine if you don't want to agree and don't want it to be that way in your game. I'm not arguing what your take on the rules should be in your game, nor am I trying to enforce my opinion on the subject into your game, I'm just stating what the rules that are printed on the page (or offical post on the message board for that matter) say. This doesn't seem to be a matter of possible misinterpretation as all the rules are fairly specific and not particularly vague, I don't see how any sensible person can argue logic.
A+X = (C-B)+X
not C+X
Effective value does not equal true value but they are often called or considered the same for easy of use and reference.
Tired and need rest now, gotta love the flu.
|
Wow... chainmail +2... fullplate +5... large shield +3... these items date back to the good old days of D&D! I'm surprised to see that some people on this list don't get how they work!
(i.e. for those people, I don't recommend ever looking into something called THAC0... if you have problems now... that could be the death of you! :P)
|
|
"A magic shield typically grants an enhancement bonus to the shield's shield bonus, which has the effect of increasing the shield's overall bonus to AC."
It does not increase the actual shield bonus value...It increases the amount of AC granted by the shield, the two values (shield bonus and enhancement bonus) are mutually exclusive but are additive in effect.
You're arguing on the latter half of that sentence while completely ignoring the first half. The enhancement bonus is to the shield's shield bonus. That's really all there is to this. Nothing in the rules specifies directly or otherwise that they are "mutually exclusive." They aren't additive in the slightest - one directly modifies the other. Everything in the game works this way.
When the rules say you have values A and B which equal C, and that B is never added to X but you could have a value Z that would be, then a feat says you can add A to X..... I'm going to question why someone is under the misconception that C is supposed to be added to X.
Since the rules don't say that, it's an entirely moot point. What the rules say is that A + B = B' and you use B' for everything that references B.
Go back and look at my Combat Reflexes example again, and explain to me how that works in your system.
- SIGH - I see that this topic has started to be another 'Red vs. Blue' thing...
Obviously, there are different ways of reading the rules. Some people (like myself) think that the distinction between Shield Bonuses and Enhancement Shield bonuses are relevant, others think that they merely become a single bonus and nothing else.
Although I question this last reading (in an AM Field, a player would obviously remember that his character's +4 Heavy Steel Shield + Shield Focus gives him +3 Shield bonus, not +7), I simply ask if anybody feels that the most balanced way to read Shield Mastery (since it seems that a lot of people consider it a bit broken) is to allow only the 'non-Enhancement' Shield bonus to be influenced by the feat itself.
After all, the opening post asked for a viable combo for a 'sword'n board' fighter...
I know that we all have our opinions - as I said before, I almost completely agree with Skylancer4's point of view, but I disagree on the 'off-hand has no penalties, while main hand has' reading of the Shield Mastery feat (since I would not give multiple attacks with Imp.TWF and Gr.TWF with a Shield Slam, nor a penalty with the main hand); but again, this is merely how I believe it would be balanced (and YMMV), not how I am absolutely sure it is by RAW.
Are we speaking of Rules As Intended? Perhaps. Are we asking for a viable solution for a feat that (sadly, perhaps a bit too late) it showed some issues? Absolutely.
|
|
- SIGH - I see that this topic has started to be another 'Red vs. Blue' thing...
Obviously, there are different ways of reading the rules. Some people (like myself) think that the distinction between Shield Bonuses and Enhancement Shield bonuses are relevant, others think that they merely become a single bonus and nothing else.
Although I question this last reading (in an AM Field, a player would obviously remember that his character's +4 Heavy Steel Shield + Shield Focus gives him +3 Shield bonus, not +7),
You do realize that there's no difference in the way that Shield Focus and an enhancement bonus to a shield work, except that one is a typed bonus and the other is not?
In general, I have no particular opinion on the balance of the feat - I've never seen it in play, so I have no clue as to whether it needs fixing, nor in what way. I will say, though, that Skylancer's reading of Shield Mastery is the same as mine.
(for fun and amusement at this point)
The shield focus feat states to your shield bonus, not the shield's shield bonus.
|
|
OK guys, at this point I just want to call THREADJACK and respectfully ask that you guys create your own thread about the shield bonus issue.
This topic is supposed to be about a viable sword and board fighter. The conversation has detoured way off course now.
I am interested in the original topic, not the minutiae of rules lawyering. So, let us please continue with the original very interesting topic of sword and board fighting.
How useful a sword and boarder is depends on a few things:
How many feats you have to invest in it.
How much stats you have for it.
what you want out of it.
In my opinion in that order.
|
|
Regarding the OP and Sword and Board Fighting...
I did create a character that uses sword and shield and used the shield tree with TWF. Yes I loved the concept and it makes an amazing antagonist. Especially adding in some movement feats such as Spring Attack.
However, as someone pointed out, it really is a TWF build rather than a shield build.
So that got me to wondering just what exactly would you consider the role of a sword and board fighter? See, I figure if you take feats to increase your AC, or even have an active use with shield for parrying or blocking incoming missiles, you still need to present a reason for an opponent to attack you.
Having a really high AC could simply mean the enemy ignores you and focuses on the squishies (mages). So either you must also have a high damage output, or have abilities that control the battlefield. Controlling the battlefield seems to me, to almost require movement denial.
Someone said that Paizo had said they were very opposed to movement denial options in the game. So what does that leave us? It seems like the only viable option then is to have high damage output. Unless a third party releases options for movement denial...