Using the rule as it is written isn't cheating. But insisting on using the rule as it is explicitly written even though you and everybody else agree that the way it is explicitly written is not how the rule is actually intended to function is not the same thing.
Nobody thinks Shield Master is actually intended to function by removing any and all penalties to attacks with shields. So why are we pretending like that's how the rule should be read? Doing so is pretty much the epitome of elevating form over function.
It is RAW, but this particular RAW is badly written, and abiding by it without using your brain would be the very definition of Lawful Stupid.
Cheat" [to] act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, especially in a game or examinationGiven that you have admitted that the RAI very likely does not support your interpretation, using the rule as it is written is acting dishonestly to gain an advantage. That is part of the very definition of cheating.
No, just because a rule is working differently than intended, and you are using it despite knowing how it's supposed to work, doesn't make it dishonest, or cheating.
To be dishonest, one must lie, and using the rule as it's written, isn't lying. It's being completely honest, as no lie is being told. Using the spirit of the rule, is being a good sportsman, but it's technically, cheating.
It'd be like someone using Simulacrum on an Efreet to get infinite wishes. Sure, it's a perfectly viable, and legal method of obtaining wishes. However, it's also very unsportsmanlike, though, it's not cheating.
But that is what GMs are for, they can nix things like that before they even potentially become a problem.
For an example of cheating, in my games I have a player who has a very bad case of selective reading. He will read something like Improved Uncanny Dodge:
A rogue of 8th level or higher can no longer be flanked.
This defense denies another rogue the ability to sneak attack the character by flanking her, unless the attacker has at least four more rogue levels than the target does.
and from his reading, only bother to remember that rogues can't sneak attack from a flank. Despite there being another line outlining the condition in which a rogue can sneak attack through flanks. Our table has an argument with this player over this very thing at least once ever 3 months for the last 3 years.
That is an example of being 'dishonest'. The rules outline how a rogue can sneak attack through flanks, but he insists he can never be sneak attacked through flanking.
Using Shield Master as it's written, is not being dishonest, or cheating. It's nothing more than unsportsmanlike, and even then, that depends more or your group or personal morals, than anything definite.
What may be unsportsmanlike for one group, would be par for the course in another. A good friend of mine has a group where they intentionally employ methods like using Planar Binding on an Efreet to give the party Wishes, despite that being a big no-no for other groups. It's not unsportsmanlike, or cheating, for that group, because they all agree to it, and the GM is fine with it (in fact, the GM is the one who pointed it out to them). It may seem like optimization for some, but the party, as a whole, always plays with a 15 point buy, where as many, if not most, groups play with a 20 or even 25 point buy (or their equivalents). They also do things like purchase Lifedrinker weapons to use in conjunction with Death Ward to take down BBEGs. With such methods, they can take on APL+5 or +6 encounters, and still win. They get to play Big Damn Heroes because both the players, and the GM are able to handle such scenarios without much pause.
Are they playing it wrong? No, they aren't. The rules say the above methods are legal, though some might argue it's against the spirit of the rules. But the entire group is having fun, and they get to tell an awesome story. In the end, that's all that matters.
Some groups might be perfectly fine with Shield Master, as it's written, because the only case Shield Master becomes, truthfully, broken, is if a character dual wields shields. Shield Master is the one feat that elevates shields from mediocre weapons, to arguably the best twf combo. Even then, it only works when wielding two weapons.
If it weren't for PFS, where a GM can't say no to a feat like this, I wouldn't have even bothered making this thread. Despite this feat being out for years, it's obvious no one has really taken advantage of it. In a home game, a GM can just say, "No" but PFS GMs have far more restrictions on what they can, and cannot, do.
It is most definitely dishonest to play a rule as written without clearing it with your GM (or players, if you are the GM) when you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that (a) the rule as written does not match the intent, and (b) the rule as written, as compared to that obvious intent, would have unusually and obviously sweeping effects on the mechanics of the game.
RAW is not sacred, and writer mistakes are not carte blanche to toss the game mechanics completely out the window.
(Yes, this is a gunslinger fan saying this.)
|
I don't know about the rest of you, but I also view the text in the tables as binding for interpretations. In this case, the relevant text is in the Feats Table:
Feat - Prerequisites - Benefits
Shield Master - Shield Slam, Base Attack Bonus +11 - No two-weapon penalties when attacking with a shield
If it weren't for that bit of text, looking at just the feat by itself, then the OP was correct that it would negate all penalties ever. This wouldn't be cheating, it would just be unfair. If you count unfair play as cheating, then with respect, that's like saying that somebody who's faster than you won the race because "they cheated."
As has been previously mentioned, English is a contextual language, and the Feat Table is part of the context. Even if you don't believe that sentence, the Feat Table is still part of the RAW, and thus says that Shield Master only applies to any and all TWF penalties.
|
|
Also, for purposes of shenanigans, it can be interpreted that since a shield can never be made into a Masterwork Weapon, it cannot be enhanced as a Magic Weapon.
Even though some types of armor and shields can be used as weapons, you can’t create a masterwork version of such an item that confers an enhancement bonus on attack rolls. Instead, masterwork armor and shields have lessened armor check penalties.
Only a masterwork weapon can become a magic weapon, and the masterwork cost is added to the total cost to determine final market value.
A masterwork shield is a masterwork shield, not a masterwork weapon, even though it can be used as a weapon. One possible interpretation, anyway, and one that I don't necessarily agree with.
The problem with looking at the table, is the table is, as far as I can recall, always wrong. If there is an issue where the table, and the content (be it class talbe + class ability, Feat table + feat content etc) are at odds, the table is always ruled to be in the wrong.
The only exceptions I can think of, are in the Playtests (like for Advanced Class Guide) but those also don't have the same degree of editing and design time that the full book does. It's far more rushed in a playtest, and sometimes the playtest isn't even written until a few days before release (as in the case of the Arcanist).
The table also doesn't account for the other half of the feat's content. With the RAI meaning of the feat (no TWF penalty) then the real benefit of the feat isn't the lack of TWF penalty, it's the half-price enhancement bonus.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
rule is working differently than intended, and you are using it despite knowing how it's supposed to work, doesn't make it dishonest, or cheating.
With respect, I couldn't disagree with your position more.
Players that take your view on the rules are generally players I'd rather not play with me.
rule is working differently than intended, and you are using it despite knowing how it's supposed to work, doesn't make it dishonest, or cheating.With respect, I couldn't disagree with your position more.
Players that take your view on the rules are generally players I'd rather not play with me.
I wouldn't want to play with them either, and I generally don't if I don't have too. I prefer people to play with people who aren't looking to 'game' the system or 'win at Pathfinder'. Sure, we may beat the BBEG, save the day and all that, but if we only won because we used cheesy mechanics, it doesn't feel like a win.
Just like, in a game such as Basketball, if one guy on your team did all the scoring, while everyone else was just bodies, did the team win, or did the player?
Technically, the team won, but everyone would know it was actually Mr. Star Player who did it all.
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!
why should the game result in characters resembling real life weapon choices? If you're going to force fighter characters into playing the game realistically then you should also, for the sake of fairness hold sorcerer characters to the same standard and not let them exist.
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.
it says it removes all penalties, so it removes all penalties. its simple. it doesn't even mention two-weapon fighting. so reading as "only removes the penalty for two-weapon fighting" is obscured. yes, it says whilst wielding another weapon but so what, thats not two weapon fighting.
If a character duel wields longswords and only attacks with one, they are not two weapon fighting. they are only wielding the other weapon, not attacking with it.
there is a difference between RAW (Rules as Written) and RAI (Rules as Intended), the Raw is very clear, whilst wielding another weapon. you suffer no penalties on attacks rolls made with a shield. this may not be as Intended, but it is as written, and following the rules as written isn't cheating.
*cough* 2 years old *cough*
Following the RAI often results in a better game as following the RAW tends to result in non-sensical applications.
For example, if you don't put a rank in Knowledge (local) chances are very likely that you, as a PC don't even know who, or what your are. When you look in the mirror, you can't think, "Man, I am one handsome elf!"
Why? Because the rules state you can make knowledge checks untrained, but only if the knowledge checks are of DC 10 or lower. A first level character with PC wealth is a CR 1 creature, meaning the DC to identify the creature is DC 11; in otherwords, it's impossible to identify yourself with an untrained knowledge check.
If your characters are ever aware of who you are, or what you are, without someone first making the knowledge check to identify you, then you are cheating. Because that's the Rules As Written.
Note: It does suggest that some creatures are more common and have a DC of 5+HD instead, but it only lists Goblins as an example, so, per RAW, only Goblins have a DC of 5+HD because they are the only ones said to do so in the Rules.
*cough* 2 years old *cough*
Following the RAI often results in a better game as following the RAW tends to result in non-sensical applications.
For example, if you don't put a rank in Knowledge (local) chances are very likely that you, as a PC don't even know who, or what your are. When you look in the mirror, you can't think, "Man, I am one handsome elf!"
Why? Because the rules state you can make knowledge checks untrained, but only if the knowledge checks are of DC 10 or lower. A first level character with PC wealth is a CR 1 creature, meaning the DC to identify the creature is DC 11; in otherwords, it's impossible to identify yourself with an untrained knowledge check.
If your characters are ever aware of who you are, or what you are, without someone first making the knowledge check to identify you, then you are cheating. Because that's the Rules As Written.
Note: It does suggest that some creatures are more common and have a DC of 5+HD instead, but it only lists Goblins as an example, so, per RAW, only Goblins have a DC of 5+HD because they are the only ones said to do so in the Rules.
Oh I agree that the rules are meant to be broken if everyone in the party wants to break them, I'm just a nerd for rulings. and yeah...about the post. I didn't notice until after I sent my second post. bonehead moment lol.