The Shield spell grants a +4 Shield Bonus to AC. Not just to some attacks, but all attacks that don't ignore shield bonus.
There is no rule specifically saying that Shield provides an AC bonus without "Facing", because there are no "Facing" rules in Pathfinder.
One of your players could say, "I want to Shield Bash with my Shield spell, tell me where in the rules that says I can't do that." Of course, you can't find any such rule. The point is spells only do exactly what they say they do and nothing more; in this case gain a bonus to AC and immunity to magic missile. Anything else is a houserule.
that was my thought, but it still says "a disk in front of you" which.. to them says "you only get ac in front of you"
hence the problem
which is why i want to see something official saying its a flat ac bonus
There won't be any, there simply is no such thing in the rules as facing,
it gives a +4 shield bonus, that is all there is to it, it doesn't say it gets negated in any way. Also realize it is a somewhat abstract system.You get flanked and both sides get +2 to hit, more accurately might be that one in the rear gets +4 to hit, the ones on your flanks both +2 to hit and the one in front gets no bonus to hit. Flanking doesn't take any of this into account, neither does it take into account that there is no shield or shield spell in the rear, you are assumed to turn repeatedly during combat trying to fend off all blows coming at you, so your AC is more like an average AC for that round rather than a single moment in time.
|
Well the 3.0 shield spell gave WAY more AC then 3.5 or PF version. And it wasn't even a shield bonus so that +5 buckler stacked with it. Yeah it only covered the front, but if you choose to set up the battle field correctly (or use a wall spell to make it just right) then your AC became oh so much worse. I was constantly having an AC of 30 or more at level 8 with the 3.0 shield. The old shield was broken.
Well the 3.0 shield spell gave WAY more AC then 3.5 or PF version. And it wasn't even a shield bonus so that +5 buckler stacked with it. Yeah it only covered the front, but if you choose to set up the battle field correctly (or use a wall spell to make it just right) then your AC became oh so much worse. I was constantly having an AC of 30 or more at level 8 with the 3.0 shield. The old shield was broken.
Definitely! It was also just a pain in the butt to keep track of which way a person was facing at any given time. Dodge is the same way "no I changed my dodge target" "I didn't hear that" etc., and it baffles me that it took until PF to just make it a flat +1 dodge to AC.
As was mentioned above, this is flavor text mixed with crunch. There is no facing.
|
If a player disagrees with a ruling, ask them to show you the rule quote. If they can't, they have to drop it ... and you keep the game moving. If they can, you review it and make a decision and then ... keep the game moving.
The burden of proof is on the player -- the GM has too much else to do to halt the entire game.
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
i think if i can get official word from the paizo guys reading the forums and win a battle they'll stop questioning my rulings
Just read the rules as thoroughly as you can, 30 year game experience seems to work against them in this case, mixing up different editions of the game. Still they should proof their point, just run the game the best you can, make an on the fly ruling and look it up or discuss it afterward.
As long as you try to be fair I don't think they have much to complain.
|
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
i think if i can get official word from the paizo guys reading the forums and win a battle they'll stop questioning my rulings
short of that, ask them to show you facing rules in pathfinder. and to show you where it says all this stuff in the spell.
you arent playing an older edition or using older edition rules.
or you could make them use thac0 and get progressively worse at combat with each level...
"i gotta thac0 of 2"
"so you have -2 to hit? well he's got a 25 ac, so you gotta crit"
or
"whadda mean he hit my -10 ac?"
"dude, hes got +1 to hit, he can't miss -10"
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
i think if i can get official word from the paizo guys reading the forums and win a battle they'll stop questioning my rulings
Respectfully friend,
It will never stop if you rely on Paizo to have to back you up (not that they wouldn't).
It is the mindset of the players that needs to change here. GMing is hard and thankless work sometimes. It is a gift to the players. Yeah, it can be fun, but its not so much fun that you need to be second guessed constantly.
If the players won't respect your rulings, especially after you've made a good faith effort to understand the rules carefully, then they need to GM themselves.. or find another game.
Trust us. You've been given the correct answers in this thread. There is no facing in this game. Sometimes in these Rule Discussion Threads there are vague and unclear rules. But not this time. This one is pretty darn straight forward.
Now you need to square those shoulders, look 'em right in the eye, and smile. This is your interpretation of the PF RPG that your group is playing. You expect players to abide by it unless they can show you where you have made a mistake; and you reserve the right to make a decision on the spot and sort it out later. Lastly, you expect to be respected as the GM of your game.
Jason and James aren't the Wizards of Oz. :D They can't give you anything that you don't already have.
|
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
i think if i can get official word from the paizo guys reading the forums and win a battle they'll stop questioning my rulings
Respectfully friend,
It will never stop if you rely on Paizo to have to back you up (not that they wouldn't).
It is the mindset of the players that needs to change here. GMing is hard and thankless work sometimes. It is a gift to the players. Yeah, it can be fun, but its not so much fun that you need to be second guessed constantly.
If the players won't respect your rulings, especially after you've made a good faith effort to understand the rules carefully, then they need to GM themselves.. or find another game.
Trust us. You've been given the correct answers in this thread. There is no facing in this game. Sometimes in these Rule Discussion Threads there are vague and unclear rules. But not this time. This one is pretty darn straight forward.
Now you need to square those shoulders, look 'em right in the eye, and smile. This is your interpretation of the PF RPG that your group is playing. You expect players to abide by it unless they can show you where you have made a mistake; and you reserve the right to make a decision on the spot and sort it out later. Lastly, you expect to be respected as the GM of your game.
Jason and James aren't the Wizards of Oz. :D They can't give you anything that you don't already have.
+1. This doesn't need an official ruling, these guys have told you the way it works. Be a man and tell your group to suck it up; you run the game after all.
Besides, now (as long as they have an 11 intelligence) they can splash one level of wizard and get themselves a tasty +4 omnidirectional shield bonus for just a standard action, without having to whip out an actual shield! They should be stoked.
Because melee characters should be multiclassing in classes that get them nothing worthwhile and wasting actions in combat on spellcasting in armor :P
|
Besides, now (as long as they have an 11 intelligence) they can splash one level of wizard and get themselves a tasty +4 omnidirectional shield bonus for just a standard action, without having to whip out an actual shield! They should be stoked.Because melee characters should be multiclassing in classes that get them nothing worthwhile and wasting actions in combat on spellcasting in armor :P
Right. I forgot to [sarcasm][/sarcasm].
My point was, the BBEG isn't getting any benefit that they cannot themselevs receive. :D
I always assume that the shield moves to block attacks from any angle, not just in front of you, since the wording was changed in 3.5. It's a lot easier to keep track of and a lot simpler to. In fact, logically if you could control where it went and you had foes in front and behind you, the best place for it to be is guarding your back.
The point being that "in front of you" is pure fluff because there is no facing in Pathfinder. Without facing rules (and there aren't any for melee combat purposes) the "in front of you" line in the spell description has no impact on the game. It's just fluff. They need to accept that.
I've been playing for more than 30 years as well, and I can see how they would be confused, but they're just flat wrong about the ruling when playing Pathfinder. They need to accept this or you're in for a tough campaign I think. Good luck!
while i agree with all of you, the people ive been talking with still do not see the "in front of you" line as fluff but rather a restriction.
i was able to find a reference to the shield spell in an article of "what stacks?" on WOTC but i'm sure they'd say "well it doesn't go into full detail to save space"
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040120a
until someone official answers this is currently the never ending debate
Like others said, they are being toads. Rules change, this is a change that happened years ago. If they refuse to respect good faith rulings they should not be in your game. Please instruct them to present themselves in this thread for a thorough chewing out. I dont care how much experience you have, you can be wrong. They are in this case. If they cant accept that from their dm when it is clearly explained, no official ruling will help the underlying problem here. Be firm and bring your player whomping stick.
while i agree with all of you, the people ive been talking with still do not see the "in front of you" line as fluff but rather a restriction.
i was able to find a reference to the shield spell in an article of "what stacks?" on WOTC but i'm sure they'd say "well it doesn't go into full detail to save space"
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040120a
until someone official answers this is currently the never ending debate
If you put a shield on your back does it give you protection from the rear. Does flanking specify front and rear vs side attacks if so does a rear attacker get a higher bonus? Why or why not? In a game with facing would these not be addressed. Tell them to show you the facing rules in the book.
PF PRD
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
3.5 Srd
Shield creates an invisible, tower shield-sized mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance. Unlike with a normal tower shield, you can’t use the shield spell for cover.
3.0 srd
Shield creates an invisible, mobile disk of force that hovers in front of the character. It negates magic missile attacks directed at the character. The disk also intercepts attacks, providing three-quarters cover (+7 AC and +3 on Reflex saves against attacks that affect an area). The disk moves out of the way when the character attacks, so it does not provide cover to opponents. The disk protects the character only against magic missiles and attacks from one direction. The character designates half the battlefield as being blocked by the shield. The other half is not. The character can change the defensive direction of the shield (that is, rotate the dividing line) once as a free action on each of the character's turns.
Notice, the 3.0 version where sheild actually had a facing included a method for dealing with facing, and provided a much more significant bonus. The 3.5 version and pf versions dont mention facing it just says, 'in front of you'. Which in pathfinder is an abstract term. Since you are considered to be facing in all directions at all times. When someone attacks from one side you TURN and face them, fending off the attack, the sheild is thus there to block it. Someone then attacks from the another direction, and again you TURN and face that attack, and the shield, still in front of you, is blocking that attack.
To chime in and corroborate what everyone else is saying, think of this like a courtroom.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are the prosecutors in this case, trying to prove that you did something wrong. You are the defendant. You've entered your plea of not-guilty by stating what you did, why you did it, and pointing to the relevant rule (Shield spell) in the law (core rulebook).
Now the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence, within that law (core rulebook), to bring in a guilty verdict. Are you guilty of breaking the law? Can they prove it?
Until they do, you're innocent.
And good news for you, there is no facing, Shield spell works against all attacks that don't explicitly ignore all shields regardless of the attacker's location, and there is not one shred of legal (RAW) precedence upon which your prosecution can build a case.
OK, maybe that's taking the courtroom analogy a little too far, but my point is, since they're the ones telling you that you did something wrong, it's their responsibility to come up with the proof. And since they can't, the discussion should already be pretty much over.
Continuing at this point is just a matter of their belligerence and obstinance, and their willingness to bully you, or your complacent acceptance of their bullying - none of which is a good or healthy way to enjoy any kind of game, including RPGs.
On a side note, here's some quotes that might help:
Here's one quote from Jason Bulmahn, lead designer, where he says he doesn't want facing in the rules. sure, it's on a thread about flying, but the fact remains, the lead designer of Pathfinder was deliberately designing a game with no facing.
Here's a thread where James Jacobs, creative director, discusses not using more 'realistic' size or reach for certain creatures like sharks and serpents because it would introduce facing. There would be no worry about "introducing facing" into the game if the game already had facing rules.
Neither of those official quote directly references the Shield spell, but they both make it abundantly clear that Paizo's official stance is that there is no facing in the game, and since there is nothing in the description of Armor Class that says anyone has different AC dependent on which direction they face, there is no ground to support your players' (false) assertions.
You Might want to have the players who have played a long time sit down and read the PF book. I actually understand why this situation has arisen from personal experience in that when youve played several versions of a game and go by memory the lines between edtions blurr a bit.
though in the case of my group when an issue arose we jsut looked it up everone agreed with the book and moved on.
But as several people have said PF and 3.5 did away with facing in a highened combat situation it is assumed every one is looking every direction.
Oh, and you might explain how Sneak Attack works to them, too, just to be sure they aren't still remembering the older version's backstab ability. You would be surprised how many of us old fargers still call it backstab. *grin*
As DM, you're the judge, jury, and executioner. If you want it to work the way you think it should work irrespective of some phantom "facing" argument your players come up with, just say to them "We're playing it this way in my campaign, because this is the way I believe it should work. When you're DMing you can play it differently." And leave it at that. They can moan all they want, and they will, believe me I know the type, but everybody knows the first rule of Pathfinder (besides "You do not talk about Pathfinder." sic Fight Club) is: the DM is always right.
|
|
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
i think if i can get official word from the paizo guys reading the forums and win a battle they'll stop questioning my rulings
Just read the rules as thoroughly as you can, 30 year game experience seems to work against them in this case, mixing up different editions of the game. Still they should proof their point, just run the game the best you can, make an on the fly ruling and look it up or discuss it afterward.
As long as you try to be fair I don't think they have much to complain.
Fully supported. I have 30 years of game experience in D&D and AD&D and it stack badly.
Too often a rule for 3.0 get mixed with one from 3.5 or pathfinder (or even some rule from 2nd eduction) creating a bad mix of confusion and disagreement.
As a bit of extra support I clearly remember a comment in one of Dragon Sage advice articles about the 3.5 Shield spell protecting you from attacks from the directions.
Someone didn't catch the memo from 3.0 to 3.5 , much less the one from 3.5 to pathfinder.
azhrei, thats another big problem i'm having, 2 of the players have 30+ years of experience with D&D over me and feel like they can overrule me but thats a whole nuther animal.
One very important lesson that I've learned is that experience does NOT equal skill. I've played with people who've been playing D&D since the 1st ed launch that are worse than other people who've just made their first character. In many cases, in fact, those 30+ years of experience have done little more than give them 4+ editions' worth of rules to get mixed up, not to mention 30 years' worth of stubbornness and elitism.
Seriously. I've had heated arguments with "30+ years" players who fight tooth and nail to prove a rule that hasn't existed in 25 years.
Well, back in my day, if you weren't any good you got eaten by saber tooth tigers, hence still being "alive" was an indication that you were doing something right.
Nowadays everyone lives to be old, so a little white in the beard just means you were born sooner, when people believed dumber things.
|
until someone official answers this is currently the never ending debate
And this will be one of many never ending debate to come. I think so many has chimed in to your relationship with the 30-years+ gamers is because they recognize your players' attitude as the root of these "rule" problems. As long as they believe they can inconvenience you with their "experience", they will not stop doing so.
Ask yourself this question, what is the point of gaming? If your answers falls in line with "to have fun!" or "I enjoy doing it", then the relationship side of this issue is worth addressing because the current situation has the potential of ruining the game for everyone (including you!).
There is a chance that Paizo might answer you directly this time, but you can't always rely on them to satisfy your players. Time to make your own answers official.
Try having alternate core DnD, Pathfinder, 4e, and Star Wars games... with the occaisional Mutants and Masterminds thrown in for lols..
O.O
On occaision, my rules-lawyeryness works against me too... -.-