Well if you're playing a game by the rules, then expect it to work. If you're in a home game, then rule it how you like. Telling me that this isn't the rules is you saying "How did I get on the rules section of the boards?"
Please, keep your "how I'd run it" and other interpretations apart from the facts. I understand peoples fears with not appreciating the feat in the big picture, but that doesn't change the facts from being facts.
PFS is supposed to go by RAW, but within reason. If the GM knows a feat is not written perfectly he does not have to go by RAW. What the PFS GM can NOT to is change a rule he does not like.
As an example if a feat says I get 200 extra summoned monsters per casting of any summoned monster spell, and it should have said "2", then don't expect the PFS GM to give you 200 monsters even though it is RAW.
The main point being made is that if you try the GM will say no, and when you go to the coordinator for your area they will also say no. Then you can come here on the boards and post in the PFS section about how someone is not going by RAW, and Mark(if he is still in charge of PFS) will also tell you no.
I've been pretty open with expressing I'm aware of how things could go down, so people repeatedly telling me that can get on my nerves. I stated my purpose of why I mentioned it, and I got what I was looking for.
Regardless, people saying no is them reading something that isn't there. It indeed literally tells you exactly what happens under what conditions.
|
question for you then
If you have improved two weapon fighting, and you're attacking with a two handed weapon. do you get an additional offhand attack with say your armor spikes?
The feat literally "In addition to the standard single extra attack you get with an off-hand weapon, you get a second attack with it, albeit at a –5 penalty"
If you ignore the context of the off-hand weapon bit, that lets you know this is in relation two weapon fighting you could assume this always applies anytime you have an "offhand" attack regardless of if you use it or could use it.
Like wise this feat is clearly written for TWF penalties in mind, and rather than think into the future of any possible penalties for shield bashing, just said any penalties associated with the attack...
Likewise with improvised weapons it states "you do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised weapon. "
I guess you don't ever suffer penalties for power attacking etc... I mean you're using it in a power attack right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, people saying no is them reading something that isn't there. It indeed literally tells you exactly what happens under what conditions.
The context tells us its in relation to TWF
The context of the game mechanics and power levels tell us that if it is applied without context like your reading is, that it has a power level higher than any other feat printed.
Looking at Weapon focus feat, I can absolutely tell you straight facts about that, and they cannot be disputed, so saying objectivity in the rules doesn't exist, isn't true.
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Slashing is a weapon type. I select weapon focus slashing.
Even if you take a rule that is vague and ambiguous, I can tell you that certain words do absolutely exist or not, but why the hell would anyone waste their time with arguing if the word "the" was in the rule, when it clearly is. Arguing what the word "the" means in the rule, with where it is and stuff, is another issue.
The feat already gives you two rather nice benefits. Arguing for a third unrelated benefit is pointless.
I'm pretty much done with this thread, and won't be responding again. BNW, I can't tolerate things being so twisted by you repeatedly, and you being unfair toward me. I can indeed tell you straight facts about Weapon focus, and so can others, but that doesn't mean I at all said that it was completely perfect in every way, so what exactly are you proving?
lantzkev, I am just exhausted from reading people like above writing the same exact obvious information that I've already clearly acknowledged. I am also exhausted with having what I write be twisted, and people just directing the thread into multiple directions where things aren't helpful at all to anything to the original purpose.
I was going to address you, but I decided midway through it not to, but I will briefly and take my leave, because I don't want to leave you hanging like that.
THW and TWF have a specific erratta that specifically mentions spiked armor.
The feat absolutely mentions things in regards to wielding two weapons, but that doesn't mean it's restricted to penalties to just twf.
I'm done. Goodbye.
I'm pretty much done with this thread, and won't be responding again. BNW, I can't tolerate things being so twisted by you repeatedly
I've twisted nothing.
that doesn't mean I at all said that it was completely perfect in every way, so what exactly are you proving?
What I'm proving is that even in your example of something that is supposed to be completely strait forward and objective different people read it completely different ways. You need to interpret and comprehend whats there. Once you do that shield mastery's intent becomes clear.
The long and short of this, is if you want to break the game entirely within the rules in PFS, do not use a martial-type character. Instead, choose one of the casters and enjoy making your GM weep.
Basically. Playing Shield Master by strict RAW wouldn't even break the game. That said, it's pretty dumb and clearly not what was intended, I wouldn't allow it, either. Just be glad it lets you use two spiked Bashing heavy shields w/o penalty (the additional -2 for a non-light offhand weapon is still a TWF), that and the counting defensive enhancements for offense is quite good enough already...
You should save your insulting sighs for someone else. I've expressed that I'm aware about interpretation, and others having fun. I'm not debating interpretation, and it seems many people get mad at me through their own accord. I use the rules forum to be objective and fair, and a discussion on interpretation is fine, and house rules too, but I'm talking strict rules. I don't agree with a lot of stuff with how it actually exist in the game, and wish for corrections, but when it's not fixed/changed, then you can't just ignore and override.
The feat absolutely says what I've pointed out, and I'm not interpreting anything. I do think it's crazy, but that doesn't mean I can just lie and say it doesn't say that. You need twf for other shield feats, and that's awful. They just assume if you're using a shield that you're doing it in a traditional way, and not solo shield.
Interpretation is dangerous, because it's obviously subjective, and you cannot be assured you have all the correct information to get the absolute best answer. I don't waste people's time with the possibility of being wrong if I can help it. Regardless if it's I'm my favor I argue and support the rules.
Here is your problem.
You can read the feat two ways. One of these ways is sane, one of them is not.
You have not chosen to read it the sane way.
You expect others to see your not sane reading as valid. And you have even told us that you fully intend to make a character who will monopolize upon this not sane reading of the rules, fully intent on inflicting this travesty upon your local gaming circles.
Whatever else you have to say about it at this point isn't relevant, you have already shown us your character as a person. Whatever motivations you have, keep em to yourself, I doubt anyone much cares.
"You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon."
This can mean either: No penalties from anything ever, at all, as long as you are wielding another weapon. OR. No penalties from wielding another weapon.
Pick the right one. We all know which one that is. Even you do, and you know it.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says in the feat that you suffer no penalties. Iterative attacks aren't penalties, so you that's going to be the same, but this feat says that you don't worry about power attack, combat expertise etc when you make an attack roll involving such penalties with your shield.
This is true, correct?
Having read the discussion (and your reactions to people disagreeing with you) I think it's good to point out that the main function of the Rules Questions forum is to ask for other people's opinions and interpretations on rules issues, because it's an exception rather than the norm to actually get an official FAQ, errata or clarification on a rules question.
And when people told you how they interpreted the feat, you got defensive because you didn't like the responses. It's almost as though you came here to find something to use against a PFS GM (whether pre-emptively or after the fact) because you knew there would be rules arguments. (You even admitted it yourself that it's crazy how the feat works by RAW, etc.)
When in doubt, please choose the option that's less likely to cause rules arguments. If you intend to use this combo, people are not going to applaud you for your rules mastery. At best, they grudgingly accept what you're doing because "it's RAW", at worst they're going to ask you to leave the table. No-one wins.
I've been pretty open with expressing I'm aware of how things could go down, so people repeatedly telling me that can get on my nerves. I stated my purpose of why I mentioned it, and I got what I was looking for.
Regardless, people saying no is them reading something that isn't there. It indeed literally tells you exactly what happens under what conditions.
So you think the designers intend for you to by the spirit of the rules or the letter of the rules?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm the 1% of people that reads things for what they actually say then. That 99% you listed worries me a lot.
I read about this far before becoming too disgusted with the thread.
You are the 1% of the people that cause problems in games that ruins it for the other 99%.
Oh yeah, shield master works pretty well with two shields
That I don't have a problem with.
You don't have to torture the english language to allow it
The Old FAQ hinted at that as a possibility.
There's no rule against fighting with two shields
Its less ridiculous than half the exotic weapons out there
Apparently it was an actual thing
And (i don't use two weapon fighting that often so i'm in i THiNK territory here) by the time you're using shield master you have a -0/-2 penalty for your main hand off hand routine, so your main hand has no penalty anyway.
|
Now, now. Many of us have been at a point where we saw something and thought to ourselves, "This is super awesome! No way this is not broken/overpowered/etc...", only to find out that it does not work.
Some people try to defend it, others accept the clarification, but in the end, it is up to the GM to make the call.
When I see something super awesome I try to look at ir in the context of the rest od the rules. I don't see how anyone canf find reading a feat as leting you ignore -30 to hit +26 or so to ac and +10 to damage woumd be a not all that powerful as some in the thread suggested.
You are incorrect. Sorry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why doesn't the feat just say "When you use a shield as part of TWF, ignore the TWF penalties for the shield bash"?
Option 1) Because there's the penalty for two weapon fighting and then there's the penalty for two weapon fighting with an offhand weapon that isn't light and Paizo forgot about a small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically or
Option 2) Paizo is aware of the small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically and likes poking them with a stick.
Why doesn't the feat just say "When you use a shield as part of TWF, ignore the TWF penalties for the shield bash"?
Option 1) Because there's the penalty for two weapon fighting and then there's the penalty for two weapon fighting with an offhand weapon that isn't light and Paizo forgot about a small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically or
Option 2) Paizo is aware of the small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically and likes poking them with a stick.
Option 3) Writing in precise, "unambiguous" language is not easy.
|
Why doesn't the feat just say "When you use a shield as part of TWF, ignore the TWF penalties for the shield bash"?
Option 1) Because there's the penalty for two weapon fighting and then there's the penalty for two weapon fighting with an offhand weapon that isn't light and Paizo forgot about a small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically or
Option 2) Paizo is aware of the small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically and likes poking them with a stick.
Don't all creatures sometimes wonder if their creator is making fun of them?
|
Even with it not applying to all penalties however, one must remember its probably one of the best Sword-n-Board feats in the game. A functional +2-4 with one of the 2 weapons you are Dual-Wielding, and the ability to enchant that weapon at 1/2 cost and have its enhancement bonus add to AC all the time is pretty sweet. If that were in a regular Two-Weapon Fighting feat, it would be seen as incredibly powerful, and in some games as overpowered. Still a great feat, even with the heavy[and fortunately, synergistic] taxes on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to apologize for getting defensive, and I just get frustrated when I feel I'm being misunderstood. Having people tell me the same thing that I've already pointed out being aware of makes me feel that way, but I understand how some people just read part of a thread, and not the entire thing. It's a pet peeve of mine, but it's just bound to always happen. Also, I am aware that your own bias can influence your perspective as well.
I'm going to try and be more self aware of how I word things, because I feel like the interpretation of the words I choose can obviously give many different reactions, and it seems quite clear I get negative ones at that. I'm aware people see me as someone that cannot comprehend things, but I assure you, I am very aware of how it looks to run it the way I pointed out, and all other aspects within the bigger picture.
To reassure people, I do absolutely understand the other side of the argument and see where there are valid points with interpretation. I will not attempt to be sly with my build and go under anyones nose, but completely transparent with the GM and players with my viewpoint. It's not the end of the world that I don't get that benefit at all, so it's not a big deal.
I feel strongly that the feat literally says something in it's rules, while others look more into it to get their interpretation on what it should really mean beyond the literal text. I wanted to see if it was indeed controversial or not so I didn't go into a game looking like a jerk if someone strongly objected, and that's why I posted. My objective when playing is to have as little outside game conflict as possible, so everyone at the table can have the best experience they can. Knowing the rules to run what you have so you can explain to others easily, along with strong and fair arguments are what I seek in order to make sure for a smooth ride.
It is great when I post something reasonable I get insulted!
Option 1) Because there's the penalty for two weapon fighting and then there's the penalty for two weapon fighting with an offhand weapon that isn't light and Paizo forgot about a small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically orOption 2) Paizo is aware of the small but vocal part of its fanbase that reads things pedantically and likes poking them with a stick.
BNW is part of the group of people who do not argue rules in good faith
Pedantic and not arguing in good faith are both non-positive attributes.
With that aside I am sure most people know the feat is for TWF, and not every penalty imaginable.
Does anyone really think it counters the evil eye witch hex which applies a penalty to attack rolls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a difference between saying "You are pedantic" or saying "This argument is not in good faith"?
Many.
Pedantry is a matter of the argument itself, not the person making it. Anyone can evaluate the level of pedantry in the argument by looking at it.
When you say that my argument is not in good faith you are questioning my honesty, something I've had more than enough of out of you. You are not in a position to look into my head. I am.
How many mysterious stranger/pistilero loopholes need to be explicitly closed before you get the hint that strict raw isn't always the right paradigm for rules interpretation?
I think it is pretty reasonable to allow a feat that for most characters requires level 11 and 4 feats to overwrite an ability most witches get at level 1 for free
Does anyone really think it counters the evil eye witch hex which applies a penalty to attack rolls?
You did not answer the question.. :)
I could also list higher level abilities if I need to. That just happened to be the first one I thought of.
Just to be clear my other post was not about "evil eye". It was about other abilities that apply penalties. It could be a high level spell(wish or limited wish as an example), a monster ability, a higher level supernatural ability that a class picks up, and so on.
So with that said do you think those would apply CWheezy?
I love the fact Crane Wing got a nerf and this feat still exists in all of it's drama causing glory!
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
looking like a jerk if someone strongly objected ... everyone at the table can have the best experience they can ... seek in order to make sure for a smooth ride.
You bring a character with your pedantic interpretation of this feat's rules to a table I'm running or playing and I will have a very bad experience and I will not have a smooth ride. I won't be silent either, so I doubt anyone will have a smooth ride.
How many mysterious stranger/pistilero loopholes need to be explicitly closed before you get the hint that strict raw isn't always the right paradigm for rules interpretation?
I like never as apposed to isn't always.
I love the fact Crane Wing got a nerf and this feat still exists in all of it's drama causing glory!
Slight difference is that with Crane Wing they decided to change it's rules, but with nearly everything else they wish we would just read the rules correctly instead of pedantically. ;-)
James, I specifically wrote the purpose of me making this thread was to access if an opposing side existed, and how strong it was. Then I wrote that if there was disagreement before the game, then it wouldn't be ran that way. Why was it necessary for you to quote me and respond to me in that way?
|
I think it is pretty reasonable to allow a feat that for most characters requires level 11 and 4 feats to overwrite an ability most witches get at level 1 for free
Does anyone really think it counters the evil eye witch hex which applies a penalty to attack rolls?
What about Bestow Curse? Or Limited Wish as Wraithstrike noted. What level of spell can the feat overwrite a penalty from? Does it matter if it's an 11th level fighter who spent 4 feats or a Ranger with Sword & Board combat style who took it with no pre-reqs at level 6 as to how high a spell they can ignore? This is clearly homerule territory and not something the feat was written to provide, anyone who likes is absolutely free to run it that way in a home game but reading the RAW with even a modicum of common sense lets us see that the feat isn't written to apply to penalties such as those.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you'd need to bother with Shield Master. Page 116 of the Core rulebook clearly states:
Shield Proficiency* — No penalties on attack rolls when using a shield
Heck, you don't even need a shield:
Armor Proficiency, Light* — No penalties on attack rolls while wearing light armor
Armor Proficiency, Medium* - No penalties on attack rolls while wearing medium armor
Armor Proficiency, Heavy* - No penalties on attack rolls while wearing heavy armor
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
disagreement before the game, then it wouldn't be ran that way.
To make it clear that if you asked if the table could interpret that feat in your way, I'm going to have a bad day. Just you asking. Why?
Because the feat clearly doesn't do what you think it does. It wasn't written to do that, it is a stretch to run it that way. It is one of the biggest stretches in the rules base right now. It is one everyone should know is a stretch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you'd need to bother with Shield Master. Page 116 of the Core rulebook clearly states:
Shield Proficiency* — No penalties on attack rolls when using a shieldHeck, you don't even need a shield:
Armor Proficiency, Light* — No penalties on attack rolls while wearing light armor
Armor Proficiency, Medium* - No penalties on attack rolls while wearing medium armor
Armor Proficiency, Heavy* - No penalties on attack rolls while wearing heavy armor
And I think that knocks it out of the park...
Those are just the short summaries in the feat index and not the actual text of the feat
What?!? You're saying that they might have used 'no attack penalties' as a shorthand for 'no attack penalties for using this item or items'? Surely not!
Personally, I think it's very unfair that only classes that can wear armor or use shields can benefit from complete immunity to all penalties. Paizo hates monks!
If shield prof and stuff literally had that written, then I would either be thoroughly convinced or extremely confused.
James, it literally states what I'm speaking about, and recognizing that is important. What I'm reading from you is you don't tolerate people being considerate to others by asking questions.If you get that upset over a player asking a question, then that's unfortunate. That won't stop me from asking people questions.