|
| 20 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does you shield enhancement bonus (defensive), which can be applied to attack and damage rolls through the above mentioned feat, count toward the enhancement bonus needed to overcome DR or do you need an attack enhancement to do so?
|
|
well since a +5 (defensive) shield doesnt count as admantine for defense, i wouldnt let its enhancement count as it for offense either. you already get enough of a benefit from only paying 1/2 price for the +5 (shield enhancements cost less than weapon).
But a +5 offensive weapon doesn't count as adamantine for offense either...it just overcomes DR x/Adamantine. Is this just one of those RAI rules?
|
In my opinion:
Here is Shield Mastery:
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
Taking a look at Damage Reduction:
you need a +3 to bypass cold iron/silver, +4 to bypass adamantine, and +5 to bypass alignment-based.
I would read it as this. If you have a +4 shield, and shield mastery, then your shield would bypass cold iron/silver/adamantine DR for it's attacks, since it says that you add it as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus for attack rolls and damage rolls. Anyway, that extra 1d6 (for a spiked heavy shield) + (1/2)str + enhancement is not going to break any fights.
Now, here's a problem. If Sven the fighter has shield mastery with a +5 shield he could also enchant it as a weapon, which is an entirely different enchantment set. Effectively allowing a +1 flaming icy shocking speed vicious Holy shield would deal an additional 7d6 against evil. He could even have a +5 shield that's made into a +5 weapon with defending to gain an additional 5 to AC without penalty! Except the cost of course.
So, shields are really huge in Pathfinder.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
It seems that Mr B. or Mr J. (don't remember which) said something about that. RAI was that only the +1 (light) or +2 (heavy) was intended to be added to the attack/damage rolls. However, as written, this +1 or +2 is completely forgotten as only the shield's "enhancement bonus" (not "shield bonus") is applied. So, a +3 heavy shield (with or without extra properties) would give you +3 to attack and damage, not +5 (the shield's "shield bonus" to AC). And a non-magical shield would give you a net bonus of... zero.
|
|
Now, here's a problem. If Sven the fighter has shield mastery with a +5 shield he could also enchant it as a weapon, which is an entirely different enchantment set. Effectively allowing a +1 flaming icy shocking speed vicious Holy shield would deal an additional 7d6 against evil. He could even have a +5 shield that's made into a +5 weapon with defending to gain an additional 5 to AC without penalty! Except the cost of course.
So, shields are really huge in Pathfinder.
And at that point they are paying the weapon enhancement costs for those abilities, much like it was a short sword. So, at best, they have the equivalent of a light mace (1d6 damage, 20/x2 crit) for damage.
|
|
Now, here's a problem. If Sven the fighter has shield mastery with a +5 shield he could also enchant it as a weapon, which is an entirely different enchantment set. Effectively allowing a +1 flaming icy shocking speed vicious Holy shield would deal an additional 7d6 against evil. He could even have a +5 shield that's made into a +5 weapon with defending to gain an additional 5 to AC without penalty! Except the cost of course.
The benefit would be in the cost...+5 armor enchantment - 5^2*1000=25000gp/+5 weapon enchantment - 5^2*2000=50000gp. So with a shield, you can get +5 to hit from the defensive enchant (25000gp) along with flaming, frost, shocking, and keen if you're using spikes (50,000gp) for a total of 75000gp whereas if you were to enchant it as a weapon it would cost you 10^2*2000=200,000gp if you were to enchant the same shield solely as a weapon. The only downside to this would be if the defensive enchant to hit/damage bonus didn't allow you to overcome DR like the weapon enchants do.
|
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.It seems that Mr B. or Mr J. (don't remember which) said something about that. RAI was that only the +1 (light) or +2 (heavy) was intended to be added to the attack/damage rolls. However, as written, this +1 or +2 is completely forgotten as only the shield's "enhancement bonus" (not "shield bonus") is applied. So, a +3 heavy shield (with or without extra properties) would give you +3 to attack and damage, not +5 (the shield's "shield bonus" to AC). And a non-magical shield would give you a net bonus of... zero.
Originally, yes. This was changed with the latest errata. It was confusing before whether or not you added just the shield bonus, the shield's enhancement bonus, or both. The new errata put out (which is where the quoted text above comes from) clarifies things.
I also think a person with shield master should be able to use their shield to bypass certain DRs if the shield has a high enough enhancement bonus.
So what is the final thoughts? Will +5 shield bypass dr/alighment?
The specific wording says ". Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus"
That means that it likely only counts towards weapon damage and attack rolls since it didn't say for all purposes, nor did it also say to also count it for DR purposes.
With that being said, I don't see the problem with letting it work. TWF'ing with shield requires a lot of investments in feats. A player could just be an archer and take clustered shots so going this route if a GM denied the shield bypassing DR.
if a +5 shield counted as admantine, it would be specifically mentioned somewhere. nothing saying it does count trumps nothing saying it doesnt.
The general rule is a weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus counts as silver/cold iron, admantine, and alignment.
Shield Master treats the shield's armor enhancement bonus as a weapon enhancement bonus.
Without a specific rule changing the general rule, a shield used with the Shield Master feat will function the same as a weapon with the equivalent enhancement bonus.
if a +5 shield counted as admantine, it would be specifically mentioned somewhere. nothing saying it does count trumps nothing saying it doesnt.The general rule is a weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus counts as silver/cold iron, admantine, and alignment.
Shield Master treats the shield's armor enhancement bonus as a weapon enhancement bonus.
Without a specific rule changing the general rule, a shield used with the Shield Master feat will function the same as a weapon with the equivalent enhancement bonus.
It never says that it counts as the weapon enhancement bonus. It says to add the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rules. I understand that someone could expand that to think Paizo meant to treat it as a weapon enhancement bonus in all ways, but if that was the case why not say that instead of calling out specific benefits?
As an example if Paizo had said to treat the shield's enhancement as equivalent to a weapon with regard to overcoming DR for a shield bash nobody would think to also give it the bonuses to attack and damage.
The enhancement bonus for a weapon does several thing.
It provides additional attack bonuses
It provides additional damage bonuses.
It provides additional hardness and hit points to the weapon.
It determines what DR is bypassed.
Out of all of these a shield is only counted as a weapon for the first two that I mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If an arrow being treated as though it had a +5 enhancement bonus due to being fired from a +5 bow doesn't count for penetrating DRs, it's entirely possible that this doesn't work either.
So are you saying it wouldn’t even bypass DR/magic?if a +5 shield counted as admantine, it would be specifically mentioned somewhere. nothing saying it does count trumps nothing saying it doesnt.The general rule is a weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus counts as silver/cold iron, admantine, and alignment.
Shield Master treats the shield's armor enhancement bonus as a weapon enhancement bonus.
Without a specific rule changing the general rule, a shield used with the Shield Master feat will function the same as a weapon with the equivalent enhancement bonus.
It never says that it counts as the weapon enhancement bonus. It says to add the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rules. I understand that someone could expand that to think Paizo meant to treat it as a weapon enhancement bonus in all ways, but if that was the case why not say that instead of calling out specific benefits?
As an example if Paizo had said to treat the shield's enhancement as equivalent to a weapon with regard to overcoming DR for a shield bash nobody would think to also give it the bonuses to attack and damage.
The enhancement bonus for a weapon does several thing.
It provides additional attack bonuses
It provides additional damage bonuses.
It provides additional hardness and hit points to the weapon.
It determines what DR is bypassed.Out of all of these a shield is only counted as a weapon for the first two that I mentioned.
By the way it is written no. Now for my home games I allow it to bypass DR, but as written no DR is bypassed.
It is worth an FAQ so I did press the FAQ button.
If it were not for that arrows FAQ i also would say that it bypassed DR.
Now, here's a problem. If Sven the fighter has shield mastery with a +5 shield he could also enchant it as a weapon, which is an entirely different enchantment set. Effectively allowing a +1 flaming icy shocking speed vicious Holy shield would deal an additional 7d6 against evil. He could even have a +5 shield that's made into a +5 weapon with defending to gain an additional 5 to AC without penalty! Except the cost of course.
It is worth noting that +10 is an absolute hard cap so the +5 shield enchanted as a +1 weapon with +9 equivalent abilities then +4 of those equivalent abilities will be inert.
It never says that it counts as the weapon enhancement bonus. It says to add the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rules. I understand that someone could expand that to think Paizo meant to treat it as a weapon enhancement bonus in all ways, but if that was the case why not say that instead of calling out specific benefits?if a +5 shield counted as admantine, it would be specifically mentioned somewhere. nothing saying it does count trumps nothing saying it doesnt.The general rule is a weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus counts as silver/cold iron, admantine, and alignment.
Shield Master treats the shield's armor enhancement bonus as a weapon enhancement bonus.
Without a specific rule changing the general rule, a shield used with the Shield Master feat will function the same as a weapon with the equivalent enhancement bonus.
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
The Overcoming DR rules do not specify Weapon Enhancement Bonus.
The only requirements are
1. a weapon
2. an enhancement bonus other than masterwork
This means I can break DR using a shield with an armor enhancement bonus without having the Shield Master feat, I just won't get enhancement bonuses on my to-hit or damage.
If an arrow being treated as though it had a +5 enhancement bonus due to being fired from a +5 bow doesn't count for penetrating DRs, it's entirely possible that this doesn't work either.
If it were not for that arrows FAQ i also would say that it bypassed DR.
Agreed. Before, I wouldn't have given it a second thought and said 'of course it does'. Now... Even simple things like this are up in the air. If the idea of the ammo FAQ was that even clearly worded abilities may be ruled against, it did it's job... :P
It never says that it counts as the weapon enhancement bonus. It says to add the enhancement bonus to attack and damage rules. I understand that someone could expand that to think Paizo meant to treat it as a weapon enhancement bonus in all ways, but if that was the case why not say that instead of calling out specific benefits?if a +5 shield counted as admantine, it would be specifically mentioned somewhere. nothing saying it does count trumps nothing saying it doesnt.The general rule is a weapon with a +5 enhancement bonus counts as silver/cold iron, admantine, and alignment.
Shield Master treats the shield's armor enhancement bonus as a weapon enhancement bonus.
Without a specific rule changing the general rule, a shield used with the Shield Master feat will function the same as a weapon with the equivalent enhancement bonus.
Damage Reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.The Overcoming DR rules do not specify Weapon Enhancement Bonus.
The only requirements are
1. a weapon
2. an enhancement bonus other than masterworkThis means I can break DR using a shield with an armor enhancement bonus without having the Shield Master feat, I just won't get enhancement bonuses on my to-hit or damage.
I dont want to take your words out of context here so just to be clear:
Are you saying that the you think Paizo intends for you to be able to enhance a shield's AC by boosting the shield bonus, and that enhancement would allow you to bypass DR if the PDT stepped in right now?
Before you come with a RAW statement the OP is asking about intent.
2nd question:
Do you think that if something normally does 3 or 4 things, and a feat only gives you access to 2 of them that you still get the other 3 or 4 things?
I dont want to take your words out of context here so just to be clear:
Are you saying that the you think Paizo intends for you to be able to enhance a shield's AC by boosting the shield bonus, and that enhancement would allow you to bypass DR if the PDT stepped in right now?
Before you come with a RAW statement the OP is asking about intent.
2nd question:
Do you think that if something normally does 3 or 4 things, and a feat only gives you access to 2 of them that you still get the other 3 or 4 things?
Do I believe that is the intent? No.
But when people start getting pedantic on reading the rules I always go back over the other rules sections involved with an equally pedantic eye.
In this case it was pointed out that Shield Master grants only a to-hit and damage bonus, but does not allow a shield's armor enhancement bonus to be treated as a weapon enhancement bonus.
A review of the Overcoming DR rules revealed that the original authors never specified weapon enhancement bonus, only that the enhancement bonus from masterwork does not count for overcoming DR.
This invalidated the argument against Shield Master breaking DR by virtue of the fact that the given reason is not a RAW requirement, it is just a long-standing assumption.
I wasn't being pedantic. Normally when the rules call out certain things that is what you get, and with that silly rule about weapons bonuses not applying to ammo they really might do it.
If not for the ammo rule this never would have crossed my mind to be honest, even with them specifically calling out the bonus to attack and damage.
I wasn't being pedantic. Normally when the rules call out certain things that is what you get, and with that silly rule about weapons bonuses not applying to ammo they really might do it.
If not for the ammo rule this never would have crossed my mind to be honest, even with them specifically calling out the bonus to attack and damage.
I don't know of anyone outside the Paizo development team that agrees with that FAQ and actively ignore it outside side the very limited scope of ammo.
My home games handwave it as having never happened, but that is a houserule, not RAW.
I wasn't being pedantic. Normally when the rules call out certain things that is what you get, and with that silly rule about weapons bonuses not applying to ammo they really might do it.
If not for the ammo rule this never would have crossed my mind to be honest, even with them specifically calling out the bonus to attack and damage.
I don't know of anyone outside the Paizo development team that agrees with that FAQ and actively ignore it outside side the very limited scope of ammo.
My home games handwave it as having never happened, but that is a houserule, not RAW.
We're in the rules part of the message board though, so it's assumed that everyone is following the rules for answers right? If not, this question should be in advice or houserule 'cuz I don't care about the rules' section.
A discussion of the rules includes whether or not we should follow them. Homebrew is about making new things, not about leaving out other things.
A discussion of the rules includes whether or not we should follow them.
I can't see 'not following the rules' as anything other than talking about house-rules. The rules section is LITERALLY about what the rules are. If we're going to ignore what the actual ruling is, then there is no reason to ask the question is there since you've already made up your mind.
I don't like the Ammo rules, but they are what they are and if someone is telling me the game I'm joining has no house-rules I'd expect that it would include those ammo rules.
Lady-J: I agree it's super clear and the Dev's have told us that this super clear wording doesn't actually do what it SHOULD do because... who knows. "pretty clear" doesn't seem to matter to the Dev's anymore... :P
Now I'D rule it bypasses DR, but I said the same thing for ammo and I was proved wrong there.
A discussion of the rules includes whether or not we should follow them.I can't see 'not following the rules' as anything other than talking about house-rules. The rules section is LITERALLY about what the rules are.
First, house-rules are still rules. Second, this discussion board is merely labeled "rules questions", with no other directions or limitations given to discussions. Third, house-rules and homebrew are not the same thing.
If we're going to ignore what the actual ruling is, then there is no reason to ask the question is there since you've already made up your mind.
The reason is to discuss it. It's a bad rule. And the badness of the rule should be discussed in the rules forum. We are literally questioning the rules.
I disagree. Your interpretation of how I view the statement is far from correct and I see no logic behind it, and while I don't like my former comment if the PDT goes that route I do see the logic behind it based on the wording.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't have it both ways and say it doesn't apply to DR but does not allow you to stack.
Isn't that the way the Dev said ammos always worked? :P
They seem to be able to 'have it both ways.
Melkiador: I can't disagree more with your way of looking at the rules section. We have a section for house-rules/homebrew, so that's not here and they are the same thing: stepping outside the established rules with home made ones.
Do you really expect to come here and have someone reply with houserules to your rules questions? I don't.
I disagree. Your interpretation of how I view the statement is far from correct and I see no logic behind it, and while I don't like my former comment if the PDT goes that route I do see the logic behind it based on the wording.Either you're adding enhancement bonuses or you are not. You can't have it both ways and say it doesn't apply to DR but does not allow you to stack.
I am not the one having it both ways. That would be the devs. I don't even like the idea I presented. I put things forth not because I like them, but because that is how I think they will end up working if the PDT steps in.
Technically it would be bonuses from two different sources, but I am sure the devs would either say "the source of both bonuses is an enhancement bonus, even if you dont get the full effect" or they will just errata it to say "You get a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to the enhancement bonus on your shield. This bonus does not stack with any enhancement bonuses added to the shield as a weapon."
With that aside you should not assume that someone arguing a position likes that position. That is how you mistakenly assumed I was trying to have it a certain way.
I had already said that I would allow it to bypass DR in my home games.
Now for my home games I allow it to bypass DR, but as written no DR is bypassed.
A discussion of the rules includes whether or not we should follow them.I can't see 'not following the rules' as anything other than talking about house-rules. The rules section is LITERALLY about what the rules are.First, house-rules are still rules. Second, this discussion board is merely labeled "rules questions", with no other directions or limitations given to discussions. Third, house-rules and homebrew are not the same thing.
If we're going to ignore what the actual ruling is, then there is no reason to ask the question is there since you've already made up your mind.The reason is to discuss it. It's a bad rule. And the badness of the rule should be discussed in the rules forum. We are literally questioning the rules.
This area is for the game's official rules, and not home rules, and yes house rules fall under homebrew.
A rule being bad tends to be discussed in the general discussion area, and sometimes the advice area. Many times when the "badness" of a rule is brought up in this forum it gets moved to another forum.
As a point of reference under the Rules title it says "Ask Pathfinder RPG mechanics and rules questions here". The word "official" is implied.
The Homebrew section says "Post your rules suggestions, house rules, variant classes, homebrew settings, etc. here"
That is to let people know that nonofficial rules discussions go there.