Tels,
I think the phrase "while you are wielding another weapon," could reasonably interpreted to mean the penalty for TWF. Read it as:
You do not suffer the normal penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
They probably went with "any" because the penalties are dependent on nature of the two weapon fighting so it wouldn't make sense to name the amount of penalty.
I agree, that was their intention, but it's not the reality. They should have written it as:
You don't not suffer the normal -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons on attack rolls made with shields.As for why you don't see a flood of people using Shield Master in DPS threads, keep in mind that the Shield has a 20x2 crit modifier, and most people don't even think of using the shield in such away.
I've seen several people talk about dual-wielding shields and optimizing them for damage, but most of those people are focusing on the cheaper weapon enhancements or using them in conjunction with Rogue sneak attack dice, sap adept and sap master for truly outrageous non-lethal damage.
To be fair, there are other rules that negate TWF penalties specifically and without ambiguity:
Benefit: As an immediate action, you can expend one use of mythic power to negate the penalties on attack rolls for two-weapon fighting for a number of rounds equal to your tier.
Note that it negates the penalties "for two-weapon fighting", which makes it crystal clear which penalties are negated. If only they'd used that language for Shield Master, this forum would be one thread shorter. : )
As it is, here come the dual-shield crazy builds!
You don't not suffer the normal -2 penalty for fighting with two weapons on attack rolls made with shields.But the penalty isn't always -2. Anyone can fight with two weapons. You don't need the TWF to do it.
TWF is a pre-requisite for Shield Master. The only person who can ignore that pre-requisite is a Ranger.
Yeah, a lvl 6 ranger with the shield styl could have no TWF. Shield and longsword, he would have no penalties on the shield attack. The sword would be a different matter entirely.
So toss the sword and grab a second shield, of course!
|
This feat is ridiculously overpowered even with the sane interpretation!
My problem with it is that it makes dual-wielding two heavy shields is absolutely far and away the best TWF weapon combination, bar none!
That is broken. It doesn't even need the crazy interpretation in order to be broken, it is broken already.
|
|
I wouldn't object to a similar feat that applies to actual weapons!A shield is a weapon.
I know! The game treats it as a weapon, to facilitate a shield bash.
But if using two shields were really better than any other style, why weren't there twin shield users in real life?
If the game reflected RL to any extent, then the Spartans would have had two shields each and actually defeated the Persians at Thermopylae!
Boudicca wouldn't have bothered with chariots! She'd have had hordes of screaming barbarians with two shields each avenge her daughters!
Alexander the Great would've severed the Gordian Knot with two swift blows from his twin bloody shields!!!
I wouldn't object to a similar feat that applies to actual weapons!A shield is a weapon.I know! The game treats it as a weapon, to facilitate a shield bash.
But if using two shields were really better than any other style, why weren't there twin shield users in real life?
If the game reflected RL to any extent, then the Spartans would have had two shields each and actually defeated the Persians at Thermopylae!
Boudicca wouldn't have bothered with chariots! She'd have had hordes of screaming barbarians with two shields each avenge her daughters!
Alexander the Great would've severed the Gordian Knot with two swift blows from his twin bloody shields!!!
*Ahem* Hasayfu Hung Kuen - Double Tiger-Head Steel Shields
A Spartan was actually very deadly with just his shield, and just as capable as killing a person with his shield, as with he was with his spear, javelin or xiphos.
Also, something RPGs almost never take into account is fatigue. Swinging around a heavy shield is going to really wear down a person and make them tired. In RPGs, however, there is no concept of fatigue from extended battles. Many of the most commonly used weapons (greatsword, I'm looking at you) would really tire out the person using it over extended periods. Some video game RPGS (Elder Scrolls for example) will address this to some extent, but for the most part, you can ignore just how exhausting swinging around those heavy weapons really is.
|
I wouldn't object to a similar feat that applies to actual weapons!A shield is a weapon.I know! The game treats it as a weapon, to facilitate a shield bash.
But if using two shields were really better than any other style, why weren't there twin shield users in real life?
If the game reflected RL to any extent, then the Spartans would have had two shields each and actually defeated the Persians at Thermopylae!
Boudicca wouldn't have bothered with chariots! She'd have had hordes of screaming barbarians with two shields each avenge her daughters!
Alexander the Great would've severed the Gordian Knot with two swift blows from his twin bloody shields!!!
I bet you are a Katana fan.
|
|
The game should result in our characters resembling real life weapon choices. Of there's a significant difference, it's not RL that's wrong!
If twin tiger head shield use were really superior, that style would have swept the world. It's not as though shields themselves were esoteric!
This feat makes using twin Viking-type large shields so much better than any other TWF combination that the only thing preventing this style from dominating the game is our shared disgust at such absurdity!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I can't understand, is why real world Wizards let this nonsense happen?
Also, it's been awhile since our last demonic apocalypse, I think we're about due. Doncha think?
|
|
I bet you are a Katana fan.I wouldn't object to a similar feat that applies to actual weapons!A shield is a weapon.I know! The game treats it as a weapon, to facilitate a shield bash.
But if using two shields were really better than any other style, why weren't there twin shield users in real life?
If the game reflected RL to any extent, then the Spartans would have had two shields each and actually defeated the Persians at Thermopylae!
Boudicca wouldn't have bothered with chariots! She'd have had hordes of screaming barbarians with two shields each avenge her daughters!
Alexander the Great would've severed the Gordian Knot with two swift blows from his twin bloody shields!!!
I have a realistic view of the katana. I don't think it's some kind of super-weapon.
It must be said that there was a huge user base of this weapon. The same cannot be said of twin shields.
|
|
What I can't understand, is why real world Wizards let this nonsense happen?
Also, it's been awhile since our last demonic apocalypse, I think we're about due. Doncha think?
Our games should reflect our stories. We have plenty of stories about elves and wizards, and about knights, Vikings and samurai. How many about warriors with twin shields?
You do of course realize, that the point of this thread is to get a FAQ/Eratta specifically to nerf the power of this feat and clarify it's text?
|
|
You do of course realize, that the point of this thread is to get a FAQ/Eratta specifically to nerf the power of this feat and clarify it's text?
Oh, yes! It should be clearly written that the only penalties removed are the TWF attack penalties.
However, that still leaves twin large shields as the best TWF combination in the game! No feat allows you to ignore TWF penalties for any other weapon!
And magic shields are still half the price of magic weapons. It's a horribly broken feat, even when worded correctly!
Now, if there were a feat which eliminated TWF attack penalties for non-shield weapons, then it'd be hardly any problem at all! It doesn't even make sense that twin shields are somehow easier to use in TWF.
|
|
Our games should reflect our stories. We have plenty of stories about elves and wizards, and about knights, Vikings and samurai. How many about warriors with twin shields?What I can't understand, is why real world Wizards let this nonsense happen?
Also, it's been awhile since our last demonic apocalypse, I think we're about due. Doncha think?
Orc Double Axe.
Spiked Chain.
Ripsaw Glaive.
Flick Mace.
Battle Ladder.
Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
Dire Flail.
Gnome Hooked Hammer.
Piston Maul.
Two-bladed Sword.
Halfling Double Sling.
Of course, the shield, is obviously the most ridiculous weapon, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Our games should reflect our stories. We have plenty of stories about elves and wizards, and about knights, Vikings and samurai. How many about warriors with twin shields?What I can't understand, is why real world Wizards let this nonsense happen?
Also, it's been awhile since our last demonic apocalypse, I think we're about due. Doncha think?
I don't remember any stories about space succubi colonizing the moon, but maybe I lived a sheltered childhood. ; )
Our games should reflect our stories. We have plenty of stories about elves and wizards, and about knights, Vikings and samurai. How many about warriors with twin shields?What I can't understand, is why real world Wizards let this nonsense happen?
Also, it's been awhile since our last demonic apocalypse, I think we're about due. Doncha think?
Orc Double Axe.
Spiked Chain.
Ripsaw Glaive.
Flick Mace.
Battle Ladder.
Dwarven Boulder Helmet.
Dire Flail.
Gnome Hooked Hammer.
Piston Maul.
Two-bladed Sword.
Halfling Double Sling.
Of course, the shield, is obviously the most ridiculous weapon, right?
My personal favorite is the battle ladder, I still can't say that out loud without giggling. Such an utterly ridiculous weapon.
|
|
That's the point though. None of these weapons, no matter how ridiculous, are statistically better than other melee weapons, nor have feats that turn them into provably better weapons or better combat styles.
Shields are not ridiculous. They are not made up fantasy weapons. Yet the Shield Master feat turns the use of twin shields into a provably better combat style than any other TWF combination in the game: no TWF penalties, half price magic weapons while still getting full AC protection from the better of two shields, automatic Bull Rush with each hit (from a pre-req).
We do have millennia of shield use in real life, unlike with battle ladders! I don't mind fantasy elements in combat (dragons, etc.), but this feat makes twin shields so good that it renders other TWF weapons pointless, and no feat for any weapon should do that.
There isn't even a feat which eliminates TWF attack penalties for any non-shield weapon, let alone all the other advantages granted by Shield Master.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I suspect that the 'removes penalties' bit should probably be removed. The transference of enhancements is worth a feat in and of itself, but until there comes a point where other weapons can remove the penalties through a feat, Shield's shouldn't be able to either.
Keep in mind, one of the key aspects of this game that is never represented, is combat fatigue. By the rules, a Fighter can swing his sword every round, all day, and never get tired. He could literally wake up, begin fighting, and fight through out the entire day with no rest, as long as he has HP to do it, because his arms never get tired.
In real life, this wasn't true. While some swords were heavy, shields were heavier and/or bulkier, making them more difficult to swing. If one were to try and attack with a shield as often as one did with a sword, they would become exhausted, let alone fatigued. In real life anyway.
May I point out that shields (even wielded by a shield master) have nowhere near the crit range that weapons other TWF fighters favour have? (Kukris, scimitars, rapiers all have crit ranges in the 15-20s, shields only have 19-20 at most with improved critical).
I think crit range is a major consideration for a lot of players going TWF and should not be ignored.
prototype00
Any player who says to my face "Shield Master makes me ignore all penalties, not just TWF penalties" will be LITERALLY shield-bashed in the face.
Attempting to intentionally misinterpret a feat for power-gaming is cheating.
I'd like to point out, it's not a misinterpretation, it's actually how the feat works. What it is, however, is against the INTENT of the feat.
A misinterpretation is more like Vital Strike on an 'attack action'. When I first picked up Pathfinder, every one in my group (myself included) thought this meant you could Vital Strike every attack in a full-attack. Naturally, Vital Strike became a 'go-to' feat for a lot of melee and archery classes, until we learned 'attack action' really meant 'standard action'.
|
|
A misinterpretation is more like Vital Strike on an 'attack action'. When I first picked up Pathfinder, every one in my group (myself included) thought this meant you could Vital Strike every attack in a full-attack. Naturally, Vital Strike became a 'go-to' feat for a lot of melee and archery classes, until we learned 'attack action' really meant 'standard action'.
To be fair to your player, in 3.5 'attack action' means 'any weapon-like attack, including each attack in a full attack'. PF didn't change the wording, so there was no reason to believe this changed.
The definition of 'attack action' was changed to support Vital Strike, when a better solution would have been to change the wording of Vital Strike so that it was only usable when attacking as a standard action.
This is what caused all the confusion about Sunder. You could Sunder as an attack action in 3.5, which allowed it to be done during a full attack. Sunder was copy/pasted to PF, keeping the 'attack action' wording. When 'attack action' was re-defined it led to some people believing that you could only Sunder as a standard action. Paizo had to re-write Sunder by FAQ to bring it back to a state where it could be used on a full attack.
|
I'd like to point out, it's not a misinterpretation, it's actually how the feat works. What it is, however, is against the INTENT of the feat.
The wording of the feat is very ambiguous, and there's two interpretations one can draw from it.
Interpretation 1: A sane reading of the ability, negating only the penalty it is obviously described as negating.
Interpretation 2: An insane reading of the ability, which even those who pick this interpretation agree is a mistake.
And you pick #2?
Pathfinder is written in English, not C++. If it were a programming language, we could ignore context and use only syntax to determine the rules of the game. But thankfully, English is not a context-devoid language. Context is as integral to speaking English as periods, commas, and letters are.
Intentionally choosing to interpret the feat wrongly is choosing to REMOVE an essential part of the language in which it's written, and willful cheating of this kind is despicable and destructive to the game.
Except, in your post, Interpretation number 1 is the wrong interpretation. It does not, as you say, 'obviously' describe TWF as the penalty it is negating, even in the fluff text.
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
That's the fluff text, and it says 'without hindrance' not, 'you seamlessly blend fighting with shield and weapon' or something like that.
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
That's the rule text. When you fight with another weapon, you suffer no penalty on attack rolls with a shield. It doesn't 'obviously' describe TWF as you say, beyond that you need another weapon.
In fact, you don't even need to use TWF to benefit from this feat. If you have a BAB of +6/+1 you can attack with your normal weapon at +6, and your shield at +1 and still gain the benefit of Shield Master, because you are currently fighting with another weapon.
Hell, come 20th level you could have a +20/+15/+10/+5/+20 (with Haste) and make every attack roll but the BAB +5 with the shield, and still benefit from the feat, since the Devs clarified 'wielding' as 'attacking' so you can't just be holding a Defending weapon and gain the bonus to AC.
Of note, is that you wouldn't be able to negate the penalties during Attacks of Opportunity, as you cannot 'wield' two weapons during AoOs.
|
|
I'm glad I've never had a player try to cheat at my table like you're advocating, heh.
You're now trying to bring fluff into a rules discussion. Well, here's fluff for you.
You have the Shield Master feat, and a pile of magical debuffs on you giving you -35 to attack rolls. You are wielding only a shield, and will miss almost every attack.
You pick up a sword with your other hand. A sword you're not even proficient with. Or maybe a bow and arrow. Suddenly, your magical penalties vanish completely! You take a full attack with your shield with no hindrance, and happily giggle as you realize what you've gotten away with at the hands of a beginner GM.
-
I'm certain you're aware the feat shouldn't work the way you say it does. Devil's advocacy is fun and all, but pretending you're a robot incapable of understanding the writing of the feat won't fly in a real game.
I'm glad I've never had a player try to cheat at my table like you're advocating, heh.
You're now trying to bring fluff into a rules discussion. Well, here's fluff for you.
You have the Shield Master feat, and a pile of magical debuffs on you giving you -35 to attack rolls. You are wielding only a shield, and will miss almost every attack.
You pick up a sword with your other hand. A sword you're not even proficient with. Or maybe a bow and arrow. Suddenly, your magical penalties vanish completely! You take a full attack with your shield with no hindrance, and happily giggle as you realize what you've gotten away with at the hands of a beginner GM.
-
I'm certain you're aware the feat shouldn't work the way you say it does. Devil's advocacy is fun and all, but pretending you're a robot incapable of understanding the writing of the feat won't fly in a real game.
I'm really glad you, essentially, haven't read a single post in this thread!
Of note is the fact that I am the OP of this thread. I'm advocating nerfing this feat to prevent the very crap you just posted.
The feat allows for the very situation you just theorized to take place. There isn't any 'cheating' or 'misinterpreting' or any of that stuff going on. It's actually how the feat is worded.
Just about everyone (i.e. not you) has agreed that the feat does allow that situation, and thinks it should be changed. Myself included. If you haven't figured that out by reading this thread, then you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. I find them sorely lacking.
=========================
For your information, I posted the same scenario on the first page of this thread. I would also like to note that in the linked post, I mention the fact that I will defend the rules of this game, even if I don't play with them that way. I even have a history of it here on the board.
I made this thread, explicitly, to get it changed so OP Cheese like what you mentioned are out of the question. As it stands, the RAW of the feat allows a character under a -50 penalty (as in the linked post) negate that penalty entirely using Shield Master. Or, in your example, pick up a weapon he's not proficient with (or even just an improvised weapon) and suddenly all the penalties disappear.
Also, minor nitpick, picking up a bow wouldn't help as you can't wield a bow one handed (unless the shield you're using is a buckler).
|
|
See, I was right. You do agree with me.
You and I just have different understandings of what should be done when the rules are worded ambiguously.
It's a poorly worded feat with two possible interpretations. You just think it's a literal interpretation to read the feat as breaking the game. I disagree. I don't think the feat needs changing to work as intended - the feat, read normally, has a clear meaning that works fine. The weird and obviously false meaning isn't any more valid than the correct and obviously true meaning.
I do support changing the wording, to clear up confusion. But it's only necessary because of some peoples' bullheaded insistence on misreading the thing.
See, I was right. You do agree with me.
You and I just have different understandings of what should be done when the rules are worded ambiguously.
It's a poorly worded feat with two possible interpretations. You just think it's a literal interpretation to read the feat as breaking the game. I disagree. I don't think the feat needs changing to work as intended - the feat, read normally, has a clear meaning that works fine. The weird and obviously false meaning isn't any more valid than the correct and obviously true meaning.
I do support changing the wording, to clear up confusion. But it's only necessary because of some peoples' bullheaded insistence on misreading the thing.
Reading it as only applying to TWF penalties is 'misreading' it. You are reading 'negates all penalties' as 'negates two weapon fighting penalties'. It that isn't misreading, I don't know what is.
|
|
If memory served, one of the devs said that to be wielding a weapon means you could make an attack with it. Does that mean that you can benefit from shield master without Two-Weapon Fighting.
It's a poorly worded feat with two possible interpretations. You just think it's a literal interpretation to read the feat as breaking the game. I disagree.
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: [b]You do not suffer 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.
Added some emphasis.
The feat clearly, plain as day, says you ignore all penalties on attack rolls with a shield. That would include power attack combat expertise fighting defensively at no penalty. It doesn't mention Two-Weapon Fighting at all, except as a prerequisite. And a lot of prerequisites in PF are arbitrary ways of making Rangers and Fighters feel good with unconventional fighting styles. Now, I strongly disagree with the interpretation that you take absolutely no penalty on attack rolls, but RAW as it stands, says that you do. It is clearly a violation of intent, but it is strictly what RAW says.
If memory served, one of the devs said that to be wielding a weapon means you could make an attack with it. Does that mean that you can benefit from shield master without Two-Weapon Fighting.
Yes, it was in regards to the FAQ about the Defending Property for weapons. In order to 'wield' an item, you must attack or otherwise use it. You don't count as wielding a Rod by having it in your haversack, it much be in hand; you don't gain the benefit of a Defending weapon, by just holding it, you must attack with it.
Also, see this FAQ on wielding multiple weapons that says you can attack with multiple weapons, without requiring the TWF feat, as long as you have multiple attacks (from a high BAB, Haste etc.) as long as the extra weapons aren't being used to grant extra attacks. So you can use a Shield and Dagger, but make all attacks, except 1, with the Shield, so you gain the benefit of Shield Master, without having to use TWF.
It's a poorly worded feat with two possible interpretations. You just think it's a literal interpretation to read the feat as breaking the game. I disagree.Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: [b]You do not suffer 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.Added some emphasis.
The feat clearly, plain as day, says you ignore all penalties on attack rolls with a shield. That would include power attack combat expertise fighting defensively at no penalty. It doesn't mention Two-Weapon Fighting at all, except as a prerequisite. And a lot of prerequisites in PF are arbitrary ways of making Rangers and Fighters feel good with unconventional fighting styles. Now, I strongly disagree with the interpretation that you take absolutely no penalty on attack rolls, but RAW as it stands, says that you do. It is clearly a violation of intent, but it is strictly what RAW says.
Agreed. RAW ignores penalties, RAI probably ignores TWF penalties. I'd like to see this feat clarified/nerfed, which is the purpose of this thread.
|
See, I was right. You do agree with me.
You and I just have different understandings of what should be done when the rules are worded ambiguously.
It's a poorly worded feat with two possible interpretations. You just think it's a literal interpretation to read the feat as breaking the game. I disagree. I don't think the feat needs changing to work as intended - the feat, read normally, has a clear meaning that works fine. The weird and obviously false meaning isn't any more valid than the correct and obviously true meaning.
I do support changing the wording, to clear up confusion. But it's only necessary because of some peoples' bullheaded insistence on misreading the thing.
Um. This feat is not worded ambiguously. It flat out states you don't suffer ANY penalties... Technically you're reading something into it... It happens to be that you are applying common sense, which you've gained through experience. But technically, if you're talking about RAW you can't really call someone a cheater for reading it exactly how it's written.
You've taken a pretty hard line on what you think of people who may interpret it this way. What if that player is new to the game and doesn't have your breadth of experience to draw upon?
Click the FAQ and move on.
Ugh, the defending weapon FAQ. One of the silliest FAQs ever written.
|
|
I am of the opinion that intentional misinterpretation, or newness/inexperience, is required to believe the feat negates more than the TWF penalties.
The language of the feat is clear, as I have said. Context is an inextricable part of the English language. Interpreting Shield Master as negating all penalties requires removing context - which is an essential part of the language.
|
|
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
The relevant language is above.
There exist in the rules some penalties while wielding a shield with another weapon.
This feat says it removes penalties you have while wielding a shield with another weapon.
The meaning is absolutely clear and is not ambiguous. It removes the aforementioned penalties.
Jumping from this wording to "HEY! IT MUST MEAN ALL PENALTIES, EVEN ONES FROM MAGIC, THE RANGE INCREMENTS OF THROWN SHIELDS, NONPROFICIENCY PENALTIES, USING A TOWER SHIELD AS AN IMPROVISED WEAPON, AND SO ON!" is not possible for someone who both faithfully interprets the feat and knows the rules of the game.
And if you try to use it in a game, knowing how false it is, you're a cheater.
The language is very clear, it removes all penalties. It does not say, "Removes all penalties while two-weapon fighting" or "Removes the two-weapon fighting penalties on attacks made with the shield".
To read otherwise is a misinterpretation.
Using a rule, as it's written, over-powered or not, is not cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules. It is, however, a form of bad sportsmanship.
If a rule says 1 + 1 = 3 (despite everyone knowing otherwise), then 1 + 1 = 3. To come in and say that 1 + 1 = 2 (which we know is true) is incorrect, because the rules say otherwise.
For reference, there is a rule similar to the above 1 + 1 = 3
Multiplying Damage: Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results.
Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. So if you are asked to double the damage twice, the end result is three times the normal damage.
So (10*2)2 is the same as 10*3, according to the rules, despite us, mathematically, knowing otherwise. Why? It's the rules. To play otherwise is breaking the rules, aka, cheating.