Either the feat allows you to use a two-handed weapon in one hand or allows you to use your shield hand to wield a two-handed weapon. Neither is explicitly stated, both change an otherwise hard and fast rule. Which makes sense, since it's a feat. It should do something.
Would a feat that lets me have reach and a shield, but levies a penalty to attack rolls be worth it? Basically letting you swap your longsword for a longspear
I think it's probably comparable to the benefit of an exotic weapon over a martial one. Especially once you've negated the penalty on your shield.
Would a feat that lets me benefit from a shield while I'm using a two-handed weapon, but levies a penalty to attack rolls? That's definitely a better deal, especially when you negate the shield's penalty.
Really, it's so good that I'd kind of expect pole arms to become the standard two-handed weapons of choice (even more than they already are) just so this is an option.
Yes, no one. No one is arguing that you get 1.5xStr while "using a two-handed weapon in one hand", because no one but you is arguing that you use the weapon in one hand.No one is arguing that "a PC using a two-handed weapon in one hand is entitled to 1.5 damage" thanks to Shield Brace. No one.You mean, aside from these four people, VoodistMonk at Monday, 08:51 pm in the thread, "1.5x, fight me" blaphers at 11:12pm Monday (I do love the style of that pig; why can't all conversationalists be this pleasant?), Diego Rossi at 11:47pm Monday (apparently before finding the FAQ, which he then honestly shared with the thread) -- with all seven of them favoriting or commenting so at least 24 hours before your first post in the thread this Wednesday morning. "No one", eh?
On the contrary, in the context of Shield Brace -- a feat which is not even applicable unless one of your hands is gripping a shield -- that is exactly what everyone is doing, by process of deduction, as the context of this discussion is Shield Brace.
Everyone except you can see that the feat description does not contain the word "one" (or "wield", or "treat", or "hand" outside of "two-handed")Exactly. It does not say that one of your limbs turns into a noodle so you can snake a hand around the shield handle to place it on the weapon. It does not say that your shield becomes a de facto second hand.
and thus the feat cannot possibly make you wield the weapon in only one hand or have it be treated as such.It doesn't have to, because the context of the feat being applicable means that one hand is already gripping ("using") a light/heavy/tower shield.
We're not arguing that if the feat would make you wield the weapon one-handed that you'd only get 1xStr, we're arguing that the feat doesn't do so.The context of the feat requires one hand gripping a light/heavy/tower shield. Unless you have an additional limb, then only one is available for the weapon.
If you can't tell the difference, you honestly need help with the english language.You honestly need help with elementary logic.
You lies are not "a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand gets 1xStr". I have never claimed that.What you claimed was that "no one" had claimed so.
Your lie in the other threat was your claim that the RAW/what the feat says changes how many hands the weapon uses when the description doesn't say so;
For the seventytwelveth time, the context of the feat requires one hand using light/heavy/tower shield, because that's the way those shields work. You have only one hand available to use the weapon. (If you had a third appendage, or an Animated shield, or were using a buckler, or a light quickdraw shield and had Quick Draw, or your light/heavy/tower were unequipped, then you wouldn't need the feat, and this conversation would not exist.)
Since, by process of logical deduction, only one hand is available to grip the two-handed weapon in the context of Shield Brace being applicable, then the July 2013 FAQ applies.
You lies are not "a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand gets 1xStr". I have never claimed that. Your lie in the other threat was your claim that the RAW/what the feat says changes how many hands the weapon uses when the description doesn't say so; the lie in this threat is that you claim we're arguing that you get 1.5xStr on a weapon used in one hand when we aren't saying that.
Of course you're not saying that. --It just that the feat can't be used without one hand using a light/heavy/tower shield. That means only one is available for the weapon.
(Your hope is that, by not "say"ing anything, that the GM won't notice you're sneaking in extra 1.5 damage in contravention of the July 2013 FAQ while gripping a two-hander in one hand while the other is using a light/heavy/tower shield. And, if he does notice, you'll jump up and down and scream and throw a tantrum like a little girl disrupting his game until he caves and you get your way. Because bullying intimidation works at certain tables, I gather.)
I could also add you newest lie, that you claim that an FAQ talking about happens when after ability changes how many hands you use was an official stance on whether or not the feat does so.Here, again, is the question posed by the July 2013 FAQ:And let's not forget the unknown person (given a momentary worldwide spotlight) who first asked the bleedin' question that Paizo answered in the FAQ, as they were certainly hoping to glean additional damage from strength or Power Attack via "a feat or other special ability"I'm slowly getting the impression that you lack the ability to adeptly read english
Weapons, Two-Handed in One Hand: When a feat or other special ability says to treat a weapon that is normally wielded in two hands as a one handed weapon, does it get treated as one or two handed weapon for the purposes of how to apply the Strength modifier or the Power Attack feat?
Shield Brace is clearly a feat applicable to this FAQ, because the only situation in which it applies is one in which a PC is using a light/heavy/tower shield in one of his hands, thereby leaving only one available for the weapon.
A dwarven longhammer (the weapon factoring in MrCharisma's first thread linked in this thread's OP, a thread in which you participated) is a two-handed weapon. Shield Brace was employed to use that two-handed weapon in a situation where only one hand would be available to wield it.
You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient.
I would surmise that the feat's writer, perhaps overestimating the faculties of some of the game's players, thought it *obvious* that one hand would be using a shield after he'd included "while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield" in the feat text, and elected to not beggar the obvious by including unnecessary verbiage, e.g., "treat the two-handed weapon as a one-handed weapon" within the context of a feat only applicable when a single hand is available to wield a non-shield weapon.
Still personal POVs vs personal POVs, so being judgmental is double-edged.That the feat does not say that you use the weapon in one hand is not a personal POV, but a fact. The words for that simply don't appear in the description.
The feat doesn't have to, because one of your hands is using a light/heavy/tower shield.
Resolved: one hand is using a shield, and unavailable to hold a weapon.Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.
Shield, Heavy; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A heavy shield is so heavy that you can't use your shield hand for anything else.
Your arm with the shield equipped has its hand wrapped around the handle of a light, heavy, or tower shield, as this is required for it to be considered equipped. Consequently, you'll have only one hand available for the weapon unless you have a unique physiology, additional limbs, or some other relevant factor.The argument works the other way around, too: "Two hands are required to use a two-handed melee weapon effectively." CRB pg. 141 Consequently, you have to be able to use the shield without it occupying a hand.
Are you honestly proposing that that's what you think the writer of Shield Brace might have had in mind? This is just disingenuous distraction.
(Envisioning Derklord's PC, who has taken Shield Brace, using his two-hander in two hands while bracing it with a somehow-still-equipped shield balancing hands-free on the top of his head. "Because now 1.5x damage be kosher, ya boi!")
Slim Jim: I think what you're missing is that nobody else thinks you're wielding the weapon in one hand.They all know perfectly well that they're holding the weapon in one hand *if* their other hand is using a shield.
You seem to think the only way this works is that you have a shield in one hand and a two-handed weapon in one hand
Whether or not it's the "only way" in other situations is immaterial; it's the context of Shield Brace, in which you're "using a light, heavy, or tower shield". You're using this shield in one hand. If you weren't, then you wouldn't need the feat, and we wouldn't be having the conversation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Derklord: There' a difference between lying and being wrong. Assuming Slim is wrong, he's not lying. Nobody here has lied.
There is a difference between being wrong, and lying.
Slim Jim's initial statements in the other thread were wrong, and thus I responded by explaining why they are wrong. Slim Jim reacted with claiming that his falsehood was "what the feat does say it does.", which I called "bull shit" - because even if his interpretation was right, it would not be something said by the feat, but only implied. I explained this fact, by pointing out that the words "wield" and "hand (outside of "two-handed") don't appear in the text. Slim Jim responded with claiming that "The RAW text of Shield Brace does not confer usage of a weapon in two hands" - in other words, he claimed something not written was "rules as written", even after I prove that the part wasn't written. In my opinion, that goes beyond being wrong, and steppes into "lie" territory.
Note that it's only after being presented with evidence to the contrary that it actually turns into a lie, as at that point, lack of information cannot be the cause.
In this thread, the lies aren't even about what the feat says, but what we allegedly said. Do you not think that claiming that we said something we didn't say counts as a "lie"? Also note that it's not an isolated incident - a single statement where you misrepresent another person's viewpoint could be a misunderstanding or be due to sloppy reading. Slim jim, however, keeps making one clearly false statement after the other.
For example from his post today:
On the contrary, in the context of Shield Brace -- a feat which is not even applicable unless one of your hands is gripping a shield -- that is exactly what everyone is doing, by process of deduction, as the context of this discussion is Shield Brace.
After I've explained that no one takes this position, he repeats claiming that we do. He acts as if we were posting under the same presumption that he does (that the feat makes you wield the weapon in one hand), while ignoring that we don't. He grossly misrepresents our position by removing the part of our argumentation that he doesn't like, replacing it with what he believes as if it were a universal truth, and then acts as if the mix between the two was what we posted - that is where his statement crosses the line and becomes a lie.
Our argument is this:
Premise 1: The feat says you use both a two-handed weapon and a shield.
Premise 2: The feat does not say you change how you wield the weapon.
Conclusion: Therefore, you wield the weapon in two hands and get 1.5xStr.
He replaces the second premise with what he believes:
Premise 1: The feat says you use both a two-handed weapon and a shield.
Conclusion: Therefore, you wield the weapon in two hands and get 1.5xStr.
This is Slim Jim's strawman. This argument is indeed invalid, as the conclusion does not logically follow the premises (because if both premises are true, the conclusion is false). He repeats quoting the FAQ that proves that this argument is invalid, while ignoring that it does not make our actual argument invalid.
You lies are not "a two-handed weapon wielded in one hand gets 1xStr". I have never claimed that.What you claimed was that "no one" had claimed so.
This is basically the same thing - his post would be true (and my original post false) if we had used his strawman, but as we're using our actual argument, it is false.
The whole thing becomes really problematic because our actual argument is what makes his argument invalid (note: "invalid" means that the conclusion does not logically follow the premises):
Premise 1: A two-handed weapon needs two hands.
Premise 2: A shield needs one hand.
Premise 3: You only have two hands.
Conclusion: You wield the weapon in only one hand.
All three premises are true, but the argument is unsound because that is not the only logical conclusion. The conclusion could actually be true as well, but that still would not make the argument sound, because the conclusion has to logically follow the premises (and be the only one to do so) to be valid. To resolve the uncertainty of which conclusion is the valid one, we need more information, which is where our argument comes in, in a second step of argumantation:
Premise 1: A two-handed weapon needs two hands.
Premise 2: A shield needs one hand.
Premise 3: You only have two hands that you each can use for one thing only.
Conclusion 1: Shield Grace has to overrule one of the three premises.
Premise 4: The feat does not say you wield the weapon in one hand.
Premise 5: All other known instances of changing the hands used explicitly say so.
Conclusion 4: The feat does not overrule premise 1; therefore, you wield the weapon in two hands and get 1.5xStr.
Our argument cannot actually determine whether premise 2 or premise 3 are overruled (or both), as I'm not sure we have enough examples of changing a shield's hands-required. However, there is no mechanical difference between the two, and thus it's a leisure discussion.
...I explained this fact, by pointing out that the words "wield" and "hand (outside of "two-handed") don't appear in the text. Slim Jim responded with claiming that "The RAW text of Shield Brace does not confer usage of a weapon in two hands" - in other words, he claimed something not written was "rules as written"
The feat doesn't define the words "shield" or "using" either -- the game requires the player to honestly abide by the rules governing shield use which are printed elsewhere in the CRB. For example, I can't strap a tiger to an arm (without gripping its tail), call it a "heavy shield", claim a +2 shield bonus to AC, get three extra tiger attacks, and have two hands available to do whatever else I want. Because tigers aren't shields, even if the feat didn't say so.
1) For the Shield Brace feat to be applicable, you must be "using" a shield.
2) The text of the feat does not confer a new (i.e., non-handed) way to use a shield.even after I prove that the part wasn't written. In my opinion, that goes beyond being wrong, and steppes into "lie" territory.Let's so who's really being dishonest here:
This is of course unctuously disingenuous, as the very title of the feat includes the word "Brace", the text of the feat requires you to be using a shield, and said shield's manner of usage is not indicated as requiring fewer hands than normal.Our argument is this:
Premise 1: The feat says you use both a two-handed weapon and a shield.
Premise 2: The feat does not say you change how you wield the weapon.
Conclusion: Therefore, you wield the weapon in two hands and get 1.5xStr.
Premise 1: The feat says you use both a two-handed weapon and a shield.Full feat text again, including "flavor":
MrCharisma's dwarf desired to use a longhammer, a weapon in the polearm group, thus qualifying as one he can master the "art of balancing" its weight against his shield's stability.You’ve mastered the art of balancing a polearm’s weight against a shield’s stability.
Benefit: You can use a two-handed weapon sized appropriately for you from the polearm or spears weapon group while also using a light, heavy, or tower shield with which you are proficient. The shield’s armor check penalty (if any) applies to attacks made with the weapon.
Premise 2: A shield must irrevocably occupy a hand.
That's how the game rules light/heavy/tower shields work, unless specified otherwise (and Shield Brace does not specify otherwise).
Unless something grants you the ability otherwise. Shield Brace is such a thing....our argument comes in, in a second step of argumantation:
Premise 1: A two-handed weapon needs two hands.
Premise 2: A shield needs one hand.Unless something grants you the ability otherwise. Shield Brace is not such a thing.
Correct.Premise 3: You only have two hands that you each can use for one thing only.
Conclusion 1: Shield Grace has to overrule one of the three premises.
Premise 4: The feat does not say you wield the weapon in one hand.
It doesn't have to "say" it emphatically (any more than it has to declare that tigers are not shields) -- it's expecting you to know the rules of game regards shields, and honestly abide by them. You are not doing so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For whatever it is worth, I agree that 1) either the sheild or weapon "handedness" must be reduced and 2) this feat does not explicitly say which.
The fact that the feat in question is a shield feat would lean toward it altering how the shield is used, but we have precedant and support for 2H weapons becoming 1H weapons at times. Flavor text interpration can lean toward either view. So I do not see a clear answer, but don't have any skin in the game, so what do I matter?
Like many, many of the feat descriptions... this one needed to be edited before it was published, but it wasn't. And now we are stuck with a poorly written feat, with no chance of official editing.
So, it falls into the "ask your DM" territory.
As a DM, for whatever that is worth, I read it as a shield feat that does shield stuffs. Therefore it changes the "handedness" of the shield and allows full 1.5x STR bonus to the polearm.
So, it falls into the "ask your DM" territory.Well, "ask your GM" is the answer to every question!
Not necessarily in the "Rules" section...
But this feat slipped through the cracks of the official editing process and escaped into the published wilds.
Every single feat and/or class ability that changes the "handedness" of a/the weapon that I know of, states exactly what it does. Most of the feats that do so specifically require Weapon Focus for an individual weapon, as well...
Shield Brace requiring Shield Focus as a prerequisite indicates that it is PROBABLY a shield-related feat that does shield stuffs... to me, anyways.
Scott, you and I seem to follow a similar logic in this particular case.
There are a lot of people involved in this discussion that are adding words that literally don't exist in the original feat.
At best, it is easiest to presume that a feat with Shield Focus as a prerequisite, is probably going to be a feat that changes the "handedness" of a shield...
All other examples of weapon "handedness" are detailed in the fullest sense in each of the feats and class abilities that change the "handedness" of a/the weapon.
Ex.
Pole Fighting Ex
(Allows its use as a one-handed weapon)
Bladed Brush
(TREATED AS a one-handed weapon)
|
Apologies for necro'ing what seems to have been a slightly bad tempered thread, but I just came across the Phalanx Soldier archetype, which has a Phalanx Fighting ability.
At 3rd level, when a phalanx soldier wields a shield, he can use any polearm or spear of his size as a one-handed weapon.
Given this predates Shield Brace and specifically says "as a one-handed weapon" whilst Shield Brace doesn't, I'm going to go with the interpretation that when you use Shield Brace the polearm remains a 2-handed weapon.