Master shield user's shield at +14?

[thepuregamer]

So normally, a weapon cannot get more than a +10 enhancement bonus.

prd magic weapons:

A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents, including those from character abilities and spells) higher than +10.

now if you are using a shield and have shield master, then you add your shield's defensive enhancement bonus to attack as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus to attack. "As if it were", meaning it does not generally count as your weapons enhancement bonus(IE, bane and furious would not boost it).

prd- shield master:

Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.

So, the shield's defensive bonus would not limit your weapon's maximum number of enhancements. Thus, you could Enchant your shield +1 shield with +9 of weapon effects, and then shield master would give you its defensive bonus on top.

Thus it looks like you get a +5 shield with flaming, frost, shock, corrosive, menacing, and whatever else you want on it.

[shiverscar]

Okay, let me see if I understand what you're getting at here.

You create a +5 heavy shield. You add a +1 flaming burst/icy burst/shocking burst/holy/ghost touch shield spike. With the shield master feat you could use the enhancement bonus of the shield in place of the enhancement bonus of the spike, effectively giving you a +5 flaming burst/shocking burst/holy/ghost touch shield (effectively a +14 weapon).

This is what you're suggesting, yes?

RAW, yep, that seems to work. You treat your shield bonus as the enchancement bonus. Enhancement bonuses don't stack so you take the higher of the two. Your shield, in your hands, at 11th level minimum, and the cost of numerous feats, is a +14 weapon that costs you 225,330gp to make (although I'm not sure how you find that much money by 11th level).

However, you only add the +5 to attack and damage rolls, per the wording of the feat. Since your actual enhancement bonus is +1 as a weapon, it likely would not overcome DR as a +5 weapon. Still, +5 to attack and damage plus a whole slew of abilities would help you bypass that DR, so that might be moot.

[thepuregamer]

well, dr might not actually be a problem since the table for overcoming dr in the glossary of the prd states "equivalent" enhancement bonus.

link here
so, its equivalent weapon enhancement would still be at +10. If we go by the table, all should be ok.

Of course, even if you dr was an issue, the shield could be made out of adamantium or another special material and then atleast magic and 1 material would be covered. Which is not so bad.

Also, I did not actually think that you would be getting a +14 weapon by lvl 11. That would be monetarily unlikely. Even a divine bond paladin at lvl 11 would be hard pressed to max this out. (134k would still need to be spent)

[lastknightleft]

thepuregamer wrote:

well, dr might not actually be a problem since the table for overcoming dr in the glossary of the prd states "equivalent" enhancement bonus.

link here
so, its equivalent weapon enhancement would still be at +10. If we go by the table, all should be ok.

Of course, even if you dr was an issue, the shield could be made out of adamantium or another special material and then atleast magic and 1 material would be covered. Which is not so bad.

Also, I did not actually think that you would be getting a +14 weapon by lvl 11. That would be monetarily unlikely. Even a divine bond paladin at lvl 11 would be hard pressed to max this out. (134k would still need to be spent)

nope, that's not equivalent, that's bonus. The bonus needs to be +x to get the DR reduction, a +1 flaming, flaming burst sword, only breaks DR magic even though it has the equivalent of a +4 bonus.

[thepuregamer]

well the table in the prd that I linked says "Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent". A +3 equivalent nets you cold iron/silver. A +4 equivalent nets you adamantine. And a +5 equivalent nets you alignment based.

[shiverscar]

That's not what equivalent means in the context of that table...

What it means is a +3 enhancement bonus is equivalent to the weapon being cold iron/silver. A +1 holy longsword has a bonus of +3 for determining weapon power and price, but has only a +1 enhancement bonus. A +1 holy longsword does not overcome DR as a cold iron/silver weapon. A +3 longsword does overcome DR as a cold iron/silver weapon because it has at least a +3 enhancement bonus (and not just a +3 bonus).

This is to add value to people investing in weapons with a pure enhancement bonus, rather than getting nothing but holy/bane/furious. The key word is enhancement bonus. A weapon with +8 bonus worth of special abilities and a +1 enhancement bonus only has a +1 enhancement bonus, despite effectively being a +9 weapon.

Read the magic weapons section of the PRD carefully. It outlines the difference between enhancement bonus (which caps at +5) and the effective bonuses added by special abilities in several places.

Magic Weapons

[thepuregamer]

shiverscar,
that is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the right side of the table lists weapon enhancement bonus equivalent scores. IE the weapon bonus equivalent values required to beat dr.

The magic section says that equivalent bonuses increase the market price of a weapon but do not add to the attack and damage. Bypassing DR is not an issue of adding to attack or damage.

Not that it is terribly important to lose the DR bypassing part. Make it out of adamantium and on major battles against evil apply oil of bless weapon(curse weapon if you are fighting good) and you are only missing out on cold iron and silver.

[Stynkk]

thepuregamer wrote:

shiverscar,

that is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that the right side of the table lists weapon enhancement bonus equivalent scores. IE the weapon bonus equivalent values required to beat dr.

While that is certainly one interpretation, the only problem with it is that you totally disregard all the rules text above and around the table none of which describes enhancement bonus equivalents, just enhancement bonuses.

I do call upon Paizo to either remove the "Enhancement Bonus Equivalent" or add it in the main body of the rules text to clarify - as it adds unnecessary confusion.