Dervish Dance and Quickdraw Shields


Rules Questions

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

@Diego: Even the action to retrieve the shield from transport position seems ambiguous. By RAW, it could be interpreted just as well that the shield, so long as it is not packed in a bag and is hanging off of ones pack or belt or back, only takes a move action to ready. Your interpretation makes sense, but it isn't clearly stated anywhere in the core rules, or spelled out in a FAQ that I know of. And I'm not arguing with you, only saying that it's something that people could easily contest in PFS, and it doesn't seem like it's worth dealing with. Even the stowing the shield=AoO doesn't seem like it would be universally accepted (a shield can be considered a weapon, but is also a special case because it's more than just a weapon). We could argue it all day and night, and until someone official comes by it would just be wasted breath in regards to having it work seamlessly in PFS.

@Gilgimesh: Thank you. The character is already level 2, about to hit level 3 (where I was going to get Quickdraw for this combo). I like the Sarenrae flavor I've got, I just also wanted to be the best protector I could be. The rapier with weapon finesse and a MW buckler or a darkwood heavy shield would have worked, true. It's a good idea, but I'd have also had to wait awhile to afford the equivalent of a +2 magic weapon in PFS to deal decent damage without Str for that Agile enhancement.


See it that way: If I had to fight someone doing that I'd wayt till he puts his shield away and then make my attack.
In other words I'd ready my attack to when he puts away his shield.
Every intelligent combatant can do that.
So you as a GM don't have to forbid him doing cheese. You just let your enemies fight tactically and at once the cheese melts away in the light of intelligent fighting.

And (as others have said) stowing something away provokes every time he does that he gets an AoO (which shield because the AoO happens before what triggers them) then the shield is away and you do your readied action.

To make it less boring some enemies can use a different tactic and sunder his shield.

And before someone comes reciting the "no jerk" rule... that applies to the cheesy player as well.


Quote:
Even the stowing the shield=AoO doesn't seem like it would be universally accepted (a shield can be considered a weapon, but is also a special case because it's more than just a weapon).

Sheathing a weapon still provokes an attack of opportunity. So even if drawing the shield wouldn't, putting it away would by your own argument.

Quote:

See it that way: If I had to fight someone doing that I'd wayt till he puts his shield away and then make my attack.

In other words I'd ready my attack to when he puts away his shield.

Which is a standard action itself, so these enemies would not get to take full attack actions.

Adam: Your build uses seven different source books, several of them kinda obscure. I've not even heard of Pirates of the Inner Sea. This might work well in home games, but when playing with strangers... If I were the DM, every time you used something I wasn't familiar with, I'd have to look it up. This slows the game down. Most people allot four hours to play PFS scenarios or whatever they're called. No one wants to sit by idly and wait for a GM to reference things.

And again, if you had a regular PFS GM that you see, and you avoid playing with strangers, it shouldn't be a problem because you can just have him review everything once, perhaps even before the start of the session, and you'd be cool from then out, but you seem to play at conferences and with a wide variety of GMs. If that's going to be the case, maybe you should try to stick to a single Player Companion supplement and the Ultimate lines that most people are rather familiar with by now. If you can't somehow achieve your character concept with that wide variety of tools, maybe you are powergaming.

Silver Crusade

Different strokes for different folks i guess. Me, I would rather wait for the +2 weapon then burning a feat on Dervish and another on Quickdraw. Quickdraw has other uses of course but my melee builds almost never take it. You may be level 3-4 when you get the weapon (depending how frugal you are) but 2 feats are priceless. Again all just my opinion, which is worth less then the paper this post is printed on (which is none).

Silver Crusade

Umbranus wrote:

See it that way: If I had to fight someone doing that I'd wayt till he puts his shield away and then make my attack.

In other words I'd ready my attack to when he puts away his shield.
Every intelligent combatant can do that.
So you as a GM don't have to forbid him doing cheese. You just let your enemies fight tactically and at once the cheese melts away in the light of intelligent fighting.

And (as others have said) stowing something away provokes every time he does that he gets an AoO (which shield because the AoO happens before what triggers them) then the shield is away and you do your readied action.

To make it less boring some enemies can use a different tactic and sunder his shield.

And before someone comes reciting the "no jerk" rule... that applies to the cheesy player as well.

So you are basically saying that after seeing a player with a legal ability you do not agree with you are going to alter all the enemies tactics to completely nullify his character?

You realize that as a GM your job is to make sure all the players have fun. It is also your job to challenge them but give them encounters they are likey to succeed at.

So why the enemy relationship with a player that is interested in giving up his time to hang out with you and play a game with you?

Is his ability gamebreaking? No.

Is he detracting from the gaming experience of the other players? No.

So why ruin his night because you disagree with his concept?

The attitude some GM's develop of "us against the players" is just silly. Your role is basically to let the players win and tell a decent story.

A lot of players cheat on dice rolls. That I would be upset about. But a legal build that supports the party?


Gilgimesh wrote:

Is he detracting from the gaming experience of the other players? No.

So why ruin his night because you disagree with his concept?

Is he changing the gaming experience of the other players?

Yes, for me it would as a player. And that's why I would tell him beforehand that I feel what he is trying to do is not ok and thus will have the consequence that the enemies will bring cheese knifes.

The question is not why a gm is going to ruin the gaming experience of some player but why a player is thinking that his fun is more important than that of the rest of the table.

If everyone plays nice all is good.
If one player starts some cheese (and really if he didn't know it was cheese he would not have come here to ask if he is going to get through with it.) the gm has some options: Let it happen even if his own fun and the fun of the other players might be in danger.
Or he can react to it.

As I think I wrote earlier in this thread, for me it is not only a problem about doing something that'S not intended to get an additional benefit. My Problem is that imo what he wants to do is an ambience killer. Every time I try to envision that kind of fighting style I just think: OMG is that silly.
Just like someone fighting with two shields or other ideas around the forums.

It is against RAI what he wants to do, it is borderline RAW, it can degrade other's fun so it is clearly (for me at least) breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule.


Umbranus wrote:


It is against RAI what he wants to do, it is borderline RAW, it can degrade other's fun so it is clearly (for me at least) breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule.

I strongly disagree here.

Personally, I dislike guns/gunpowder and don't like them in fantasy games. Can I say that anyone playing a gunslinger is automatically 'cheesy' and must be a 'jerk'? No.

You have a knee-jerk dislike for something he's doing. I have the same dislike for gunslingers. Is that the other player's fault? No, in neither case. They've picked legal things for something that they thought would be fun and helpful to the party.

You start with the benefit of the doubt. Extend that to everyone else at the table. Failing to do so places you, not them, in the wrong.

-James


Diego Rossi wrote:

If the shield is on your shoulder it is still encumbering your arm but the weight is better distributed for transportation. Moving the shield from the shoulder to the arm and gripping the handle with your hand is readying it.

Encumbering your arm? By that do you mean you can't use that arm to wield a weapon if a shield is on your shoulder? That doesn't seem to be supported by RAW. I don't see how you can use a shield without use ing it, so to speak. If your arm is considered free, why carry a shield anywhere else?

Quote:

Don and stow a shield.

A stowed shield is on your back or backpack, so in a position that isn't easily accessible. In this situation you don't need simply to let it slip a few centimetres along your arm and grip the handle but you need to bend your arm backward, grab a fairly heavy object and move in in position.
So you fall under "Retrieve a stored item" and provoke. Normally it is a move action but the special form of the quickdraw shield allow you to draw it more speedy. That don't negate the AoO.

Same thing in reverse for stowing it away. The OP want a free arm to use Dervish dance (the feat actually speak of hand, but it say that you can't be carrying a shield), so he is not simply unreadying a shield, but he is stowing it away. Normally that would be a move action. As the quickdraw shield allow him to stow the shield as a swift or free action he can do that every round, but he still provoke an AoO as stowing away an item provoke.

OK, can you "ready" a stowed shield with a move action that doesn't provoke? Or is it two move actions, one to retrieve the shield (provokes) and one to ready it(doesn't provoke)? The "Retrieve an Item" action does not allow you to strap a shield to your arm, so if you can't ready a stowed shield you must spend separate actions to retrieve and ready the shield.

Unready is not a game term. Presumably unstrapping the shield and slinging it over you shoulder to the "unreadied" position is covered under "Drop a Shield" and is a move action that doesn't provoke. Otherwise, you would have to spend a move action to put the shield away, provoking. A reasonable character would "put it away" in the "unreadied" position, so he can ready it again with a single move action that doesn't provoke. It would be pretty ridiculous to claim that a character couldn't sling the shield over his shoulder with a single action and had to take the shield off completely and hook it to his pack.

Quote:
That is my opinion on the difference of readying and donning a shield.

But, you didn't tell me the difference between readying and donning a shield. You told me what a stowed shield is. Do you "ready" a shield slung over your shoulder and "Don" a shield strapped to your pack? It seems pretty ridiculous to me that a Quickdraw shield could reduce two move actions (retrieving a shield and readying it) to a single swift action, without changing the action required to simply ready it.


Wielding means "actively trying to use the item," and is normally only used in the context of weapons or weapon-like objects such as rods, wands, and so on.

Otherwise, it's just an item you're holding/carrying.

And if you're not holding/carrying/bearing it, you're probably wearing it, or it's stowed in a sheath or backpack.

Some people feel that when a Quickdraw shield is "put away" that's the same as being "stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach" which means you must use the Manipulate an Item action (Move, provokes) to get it out, then use the Ready a Shield action to don it. (Normally a Move, changed to Free with Quick Draw+Quickdraw)

Other people feel that being able to "ready or stow it on his or her back quickly and easily" means it's not the same as being inside a closed backpack, and it is in easy reach. This means you can draw it using the Draw a Weapon action (Normally a Move, changed to Free with Quick Draw) then use the Ready a Shield action to don it. (Normally a Move, changed to Free with Quick Draw+Quickdraw)

Still others feel that when a Quickdraw shield is "put away" you're not stowing or sheathing or anything like that, you're just bearing it, and the only action needed to use it is the Ready a Shield action to don it. (Normally a Move, changed to Free with Quick Draw+Quickdraw)


As I see this whole thing:

The op wants to go to a gaming event where the goal is for several players and a GM to all have fun.
He takes with him a pc build which he knows has a good chance to piss off his gm and perhaps some of the other players.
To justify himself he is being a rules lawyer and always repeats it's RAW, it's RAW.
And in case the gm is really pissed he can always tell him he's a jerk for not allowing him a RAW pc.

If you feel that's ok, go on.

I like to play with guys who appreciate the work a GM puts into the game. And who don't try to annoy him with cheese because if you do that he will not have fun and eventually stop being a GM.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For those new people who won't read the full thread - I have determined that the build I was using wouldn't be ideal for PFS play because it has a good chance of annoying players or GMs. No need to convince me further.

However, I don't think the moderators/forum designers goal of putting the "don't be a jerk" rule so visably was to have everyone call those with a different style of play a jerk. It has been excessive in this thread. It is not being a jerk to be an optimizer - unless you overshadow the other players or make the adventure unchallenging in a way that negatively impacts the other players. Perspective, please. My concept was not overpowered, but yes, it bypassed a limitation of a fighting style (Dex melee) so that I could play a second style normally reserved for Str-based characters (shield fighting). Therefore many call it cheese. A label that is practically meaningless. To some it just means silly fun, others it means it breaks the enjoyment of the game.

Regardless, no need to wag your fingers at me for a concept outside the norm, that is less effective than the traditional sword and board fighter concept I find utterly boring. I was trying to create an optimal protector that used Dex over Str. That's all. I wasn't intending to ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game - playing a character focused on helping other characters survive melee combat and giving some buffs/debuffs doesn't hurt anyone. For everyone spouting RAI, what about a player's intentions? I think that should be important likewise.


Umbranus wrote:
The op wants to go to a gaming event where the goal is for several players and a GM to all have fun.

Yep.

Umbranus wrote:
He takes with him a pc build which he knows has a good chance to piss off his gm and perhaps some of the other players.

Nope. A GM shouldn't be pissed off at someone following the rules and gaining a minor bonus on an unoptimized character.

A player who gets pissed off at someone else equipping a shield is probably the same kind of player who will get pissed off at a barbarian using a two-handed weapon. (This actually happened)

Umbranus wrote:
To justify himself he is being a rules lawyer and always repeats it's RAW, it's RAW.

This is bordering on the uncivil. Using the shield legally the way it was intended and mixing it with a feat the way it was intended to play an interesting character concept, all in the way JJ has stated was intended, is not being a rules laywer. It's being a player.

Umbranus wrote:
And in case the gm is really pissed he can always tell him he's a jerk for not allowing him a RAW pc.

Some DMs don't allow gunslingers. They will refuse to run the table if a player brings one. This is allowed, and technically, somehow, not being a jerk. The same should be said for a DM who doesn't allow quickdraw shields or dervishes. Or summoners, or druids, or two-handed weapons, or whatever other baggage he's brought over from 12 years of experience with other similar games.

Umbranus wrote:
I like to play with guys who appreciate the work a GM puts into the game. And who don't try to annoy him with cheese because if you do that he will not have fun and eventually stop being a GM.

Do you honestly think his goal was to annoy the GM with cheese? Or to ruin the other players fun?

As a GM, are you really going to have your whole experience ruined by a player equipping a shield as a free action, when he's spent the feat and gold needed to do so?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Adam Ashworth wrote:
However, I don't think the moderators/forum designers goal of putting the "don't be a jerk" rule so visably was to have everyone call those with a different style of play a jerk. It has been excessive in this thread. It is not being a jerk to be an optimizer - unless you overshadow the other players or make the adventure unchallenging in a way that negatively impacts the other players. Perspective, please.

Well said, Adam.

I instinctively don't care for the idea of putting away a shield and then reversing that process, all during your turn, but I can see the rules support that, with the GM variance people have suggested.

People who advance this fighting style are not jerks. They're people who want to have fun, within the rules, with style.

GMs who disallow this at their tables are not jerks. They're people trying to follow the rules and also make sure everybody else at the table is having fun.

We are all on the same side here.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

@Grick and @Chris Mortika:

Thank you both. People get so riled up and so accusatory, it's great to hear a more calm and rational side to things, and not assumptions that my intent was at all negative.

I didn't start his thread to gauge if I could get away with some horrible exploit. I started the thread to see if my idea was legal and had the potential to make the game less enjoyable for myself (for having a GM shut me down) and others (those who hate "cheese"). I'm new to organized games/PFS (5 games total), and I'm about to go to my first gaming convention after always playing in home games. It is really fascinating (and horrifying) how negative people get when people have a play style they disagree with. But that's the reality of the situation, not for all but for some, and the knowledge has made ma a tad more conservative in character planning. Which, really, isn't a problem.

I totally agree - a GM shutting me down wouldn't be a jerk, unless he did it out of malice. If he did it to make the game more fun for everyone involved (including himself), that's totally great and I respect that. On the same note, it doesn't make me a jerk for trying to creatively cook up a somewhat odd miss-mash concept that requires some optimization to even function well. If I did cook up the concept to dominate the game, to ruin the challenge level, or to piss someone off - that would make me a jerk. I would also be a jerk if the character had the negative results regardless of intent, yet I still wanted to play him as-is. Team RPGs exist so that we all share the limelight - I want to enable others to survive and make them more effective, because they'll have more fun and I'll have more fun. And I will do so, in a way that's less controversial!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

What convention are you planning to attend?


SO, upon looking at the OP's "cheese build" that he kindly provided, saving shield wasn't going to come into effect for another 2-3 levels. The other part of the hot carl here is that saving shield provides a shield bonus to your ally, and is an immediate action. That is, it's only a +2, and it's of a kind that anyone with any sort of shield (even the shield spell) cannot benefit from. And it's only useable once per round.

The Covering defense part is still quite legit, though, as it requires the total defense action. The only problem with this, though, is that the total defense action denies you the ability to make AoOs. So, it was kind of one-or-the-other from the start.


Another option to contribute to party dynamics is to use your ranger feat to get either Weapon Focus, through the Natural Weapon style (it doesn't specify that you have to select Natural attacks for Weapon Focus), and take Dazzling Display instead of enforcer (take that just a little bit later), OR take Cleave as your ranger style feat (2 hand style) to make enforcer a bit more effective. Either way, these are solid debuffs That are AT LEAST as good as giving ONE ally a +2 shield bonus.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I cleaned up some posts.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

@Chris

Pacificon in Santa Clara, CA

@galahad2112:

Ah - the bit about total defense not working with Bodyguard, that's good information I hadn't thought of. But the real aggrivation in regards to power I saw was in regards to the extra AC bonus (up to +7 with Shield Focus and a +5 quickdraw shield eventually, or +2 to start with a +1 shield) and the fact that a Str build could switch between one handed and two handed combat (nothing to do with my build).

Yeah, but with that in mind Covering Defense wouldn't be worth it at all. I'd need a +3 shield with shield focus for it to exceed the +4 from bodyguard I'd be losing, and it would only work on one target and require a standard action. Bodyguard would work to defend against up to 5 attacks per round with my character's current Dex, but I need to be adjacent to both ally and foe instead of just ally. It wasn't a very practical choice - Saving Shield still would have been nice for those without shield bonuses though, as of course the shield bonus would have been for my front-line character's survivabilty.

Also, your first suggestion was actually the plan - although with Dazzling Display at 5th so as to benefit from Enforcer immediately. Cleave was my backup. I think I might dip into Urban Barbarian at 3rd, and then go all Ranger the rest for the Dazzling Display/Shattering Defense combo. Lots of fun options!


I'm glad to see that your build is still going to be viable. Have fun!


I don't suppose you looked at the Shielded Fighter archetype did you? It has the ability to grant dodge bonuses to adjacent allies as a swift action. That should be pretty compatible with everything. You have to fight defensively or use combat expertise while doing it though. Using a madu would help with the penalty and would probably work well with the archetype.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

@Killsmith:

Not closely, it would seem - I didn't notice the swift action part when I was first looking at it. It doesn't synergize well with Saving Shield, but it would work with Covering Defense, and with Bodyguard. With Archon Diversion (not Justice), it could work too. Although reading up on shield bashes, that's another controversial topic that I wouldn't want to get myself stuck with (shield bash as off -hand even if it's your only attack/weapon, inability to use shield bash at all without major penalties as a single weapon without Two Weapon Fighting feat... frustrating).


It does allow you to interchange shield bashes with your iterative attacks. Combined with the shield master feat it could make some decent attacks. That wouldn't happen until 5th level though.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Sadly Shield Master has a BAB requirement of +11!! Ranger's can get it at level 6 though through their bonus feats.

101 to 124 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dervish Dance and Quickdraw Shields All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.