RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An interesting question came up recently in a PFS scenario I as playing at the local convention last weekend. Our cleric was trying to use his heavy shield to bash an enemy because it was more effective than using his scimitar (the enemy had DR/bludgeoning).
Clerics gain Shield Proficiency as a feat, but not Martial Weapon Proficiency (shields). Using a shield to bash is specifically listed as a martial bludgeoning weapon. The question is: Does the Shield Proficiency feat grant the ability to bash with said shield without the usual non-proficiency penalty? Or must a character possess Martial Weapon Proficiency in order to bash without penalty?
Here's why there is confusion: Improved Shield Bash lists ONLY Shield Proficiency as a prerequisite and makes no mention of Martial Weapon Proficiency. This means that a cleric could take Improved Shield Bash and STILL be swinging at a -4 penalty when using the bash. In a similar vein, it would be possible for a character to take Martial Weapon Proficiency (shield) and NOT have Shield Proficiency, meaning the shield's armor check penalty would apply to his attack rolls.
Clerics gain Shield Proficiency as a featSource? Because all I see is "clerics are proficient with shields", not "clerics gain Shield Proficiency as a bonus feat".
They're proficient with shields. Is it a shield? Yes? Then he's proficient.
Source is the Shield proficiency feat itself. According to it, Clerics have it as a bonus feat.
This is totally something that deserves clarification; its implied Clerics are proficient with shields as armor (as they aren't listed in the weapons portion of their proficiencies), though technically you're right; it doesn't differenciate on how they are proficient with shields.
Cleric: Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields).
I would say Clerics have both Shield Proficiency and Martial Weapon Proficiency (Shield)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Source is the Shield proficiency feat itself. According to it, Clerics have it as a bonus feat.
Ah, good catch, thanks.
This is totally something that deserves clarification; its implied Clerics are proficient with shields as armor (as they aren't listed in the weapons portion of their proficiencies), though technically you're right; it doesn't differenciate on how they are proficient with shields.
Well, my thinking is this:
1) I'm not aware of any rule anywhere that ever gives you partial proficiency with anything. To think, then, that clerics are only proficient with shields in certain ways is to invent a concept that has no precedent in the rules.2) Similar to #1, a shield is a single item. It is not a pair of items that happen to share the same physical space and you need separate proficiency to use each of them.
3) Class proficiencies are not separated into weapon profs and armor profs, as you seem to imply - it's all one section. Clerics are proficient with X, Y and Z; and one of those is shields.
I honestly can't think of a single reason to think that a character who is proficient with shields would somehow not be treated as such.
I honestly can't think of a single reason to think that a character who is proficient with shields would somehow not be treated as such.
The main issue here is that shields are listed as armor AND weapons. If you look in the weapon section of the CRB, shields are listed under the martial weapons section.
Just like if you want a shield that can bash, you have to enchant it like a weapon, and if you want a bonus to your AC, you have to enchant it like a shield as well (Shield Master feat notwithstanding).
I would argue that just because a cleric knows how to protect himself with the shield, doesn't mean he knows how to hurt people effectively with it.
Official Rules Response
|
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9r3w
Shield Bash: If I am proficient with shields, can I make a shield bash without a nonproficiency penalty?
Armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies are different things.
Table 6–4: Weapon (page 142) lists light shields, heavy shields, and spiked shields as martial weapons. The shield bash attacks entries (page 152) say that using a shield in this way is a "martial bludgeoning weapon."
Regardless of whether or not you are proficient in wearing a shield for defense, attacking with a shield is using a martial weapon and you take appropriate penalties if you are not proficient in martial weapons (for example, if you are a cleric, you take a –4 nonproficiency penalty when making shield bash attacks because you are not proficient in martial weapons).
I understand this response but the cleric class doesn't state they are proficient with shields for defense, it just says they are proficient in them. One nice long sentence.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Clerics are proficient with all simple weapons, light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields). Clerics are also proficient with the favored weapon of their deity.
It doesn't even break out shields into a separate statement of what armor they are proficient in.
|
RJGrady, look at it this way: Clerics, as bonus feats, gain Simple Weapon Proficiency, Light Armor Proficiency, Medium Armor Proficiency, and Shield Proficiency (plus Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiency in deity's favored weapon as applicable). Shield Proficiency as a feat doesn't grant you the ability to use it as a weapon, just the ability to use a shield without applying the shield's penalty on attack rolls and all "skill checks that involve moving."
This interpretation is actually called out by the special section on the Shield Proficiency feat.
I would expect it to be called out in the cleric's list of proficiencies. After all, Shield Proficiency doesn't state clerics aren't proficient in shields as weapons, just that they are proficient with them as armor. I certainly can look at it that way, it's just that I can't see anything in the text that says it should be looked at that way. FAQ'd, asked and answered, I'm sure, but it always bothers me when wonky text isn't fixed if the intent is something other than what it says.