|
| 40 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello all!
Question:
Due to the threads
Here
Here
Here
And Here
I feel as if this is a question asked frequently enough that it might deserve an FAQ.
The basic arguments go like this
RAW:The feat says you take no attack roll penalties.
RAI:The intent of the feat seems to be that it only applies to TWFing.
[i]Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.[i]
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any 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.
Yay! My thread got mentioned!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I got a related question to this that I haven't found specifically mentioned (I could have missed it in the mass of shield master and shield bashing threads, though):
Brawler's Flurry (from the Advanced Class Guide playtest) is basically two-weapon fighting/flurry and allows weapons from the close fighter weapon group, which light/heavy shields, to be flurried. Would the Shield Master allow a brawler to flurry shield bashing with no flurry penalties since they're basically two-weapon fighting (granted, with 1 weapon) penalties?
Well I personally doubt it removes all penalties, but what do people think of the TWF-equivalent flurry penalties?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Still surprising that this hasn't been caught and erratad in all these years, especially considering how blatantly broken this feat is.
Considering how broken the RAW of this feat is, I've always wondered how it works in society play.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is this even a question?
Its kind of like anything else. The right answer is obvious, but the wrong answer benefits me greatly, so i will attempt to embrace the wrong answer even if i have to sacrifice sense , reason, and balance like a thanksgiving turkey.
The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Wow, thats a really strong feat!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Because the intent is obvious, and fixing it would accomplish nothing useful at the cost of time/money/energy that would be taken away from something more important, like writing the next adventure path or rule supplement, or answering a question that actually needs answering.
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
Yeah its effects are obvious, attacks with shields are under no penalties. Not from 2wf or power attack.
Yeah its effects are obvious, attacks with shields are under no penalties. Not from 2wf or power attack.
Sure. Tell that to your GM. I'm sure it'll go just fine.
Clearly there is because the question has been asked multiple times
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
A question asked is not necessarily a question worth answering. If you know the answer but ask anyway, why should one waste resources answering?
One rule them all thread to rule them all!
Is it time for this thread again?
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
This is the only point I'm going to disagree with blahpers on. It's never too late to fix something.
I do agree with everything else they've said though. In fact, I didn't even consider the idea that this feat removed anything other than the TWF penalties before I saw someone claiming it did in one of these threads.
Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.
Isn't that the common interpretation of what they intended Shield Master to do?
The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Because the intent is obvious, and fixing it would accomplish nothing useful at the cost of time/money/energy that would be taken away from something more important, like writing the next adventure path or rule supplement, or answering a question that actually needs answering.
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
It's not very professional however.
They'll fix typos but won't change or insert a word to make things unambiguous?
Fixing most typos doesn't accomplish much, just makes things easier to read. Sitting down to read Shield Master, all it says is that I don't take penalties while wielding another weapon.
Is it wrong to want the text to match what the intent is? Is it wrong to expect that? When I pop open a book should I not expect the words to mean what they say?
Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.
HOw is so?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see Paizo completely scrap their existing errata policy in favour of something more like the way that Wizards deals with Magic, or how many MMOs are run. Ideally, every book would have an errata file, right from day one, and there would be no holding off needed fixes for months or years at a time. If something gets reprinted in a new book, there's no concern about anyone forgetting that it needed to be fixed for the past three or four years (Glorious Heat), because the fixed version has been around for just as long. If an errata ruins a feat and is reviled by the playerbase for making a useful feat a combat-stalling P.I.T.A. to actually use (Crane Wing), it can be rolled back the next month. There'd be no outcry over waiting three years for a book to get reprinted only to leave broken content un-errata'd (Myrmidarch, Boar Style chain). Heck, knowing that the rules content of the 32 and 64 page books wasn't going to be printed and then abandoned when something proves to need fixing would likely increase sales (albeit, probably only slightly).
HOw is so?Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.
Rather than negating the penalty (-4 becomes 0), it would only reduce it by 2 (-4 becomes -2).
That is a nerf any way you slice it, since it certainly negates TWFing penalties.
The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Because the intent is obvious, and fixing it would accomplish nothing useful at the cost of time/money/energy that would be taken away from something more important, like writing the next adventure path or rule supplement, or answering a question that actually needs answering.
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
It's not very professional however.
They'll fix typos but won't change or insert a word to make things unambiguous?
Fixing most typos doesn't accomplish much, just makes things easier to read. Sitting down to read Shield Master, all it says is that I don't take penalties while wielding another weapon.
Is it wrong to want the text to match what the intent is? Is it wrong to expect that? When I pop open a book should I not expect the words to mean what they say?
Nope, it's not wrong at all. But there's a cost to every fix, and personally I'd rather they fixed the stuff that actually affects play amongst non-pathological gamers rather than the occasional typo or bad edit. If the typo or bad edit results in genuine confusion, that's the sort of thing that ought to be fixed. Otherwise, I'd rather they spent the time making sure their next produce doesn't have as many errors.
Nope, it's not wrong at all. But there's a cost to every fix, and personally I'd rather they fixed the stuff that actually affects play amongst non-pathological gamers rather than the occasional typo or bad edit. If the typo or bad edit results in genuine confusion, that's the sort of thing that ought to be fixed. Otherwise, I'd rather they spent the time making sure their next produce doesn't have as many errors.The divide occurs when you consider,
The rules shouldn't be written so blatantly poorly and not be errata'd or FAQ'd.
If it is so clear what the intent is and the RAW so blatantly contrasting against it, why the hells haven't we fixed it already?
Because the intent is obvious, and fixing it would accomplish nothing useful at the cost of time/money/energy that would be taken away from something more important, like writing the next adventure path or rule supplement, or answering a question that actually needs answering.
It would have been nice if the original text were written correctly, but there's little point in fixing it at this point.
It's not very professional however.
They'll fix typos but won't change or insert a word to make things unambiguous?
Fixing most typos doesn't accomplish much, just makes things easier to read. Sitting down to read Shield Master, all it says is that I don't take penalties while wielding another weapon.
Is it wrong to want the text to match what the intent is? Is it wrong to expect that? When I pop open a book should I not expect the words to mean what they say?
I think it's a shame that it's apparently such a great cost to drop a line on the FAQ that we simply go without and the feat continues to do what it apparently doesn't mean to do and doesn't do what it was intended to do.
If you handed me a packet of rules for your game and the packet says that the blue knight attacks 6 times and when I try to do it you go "OH WAIT, THAT WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE ONE!" I imagine it'd probably be a good idea to fix that, not just assume everyone will know what you mean and will berate others for playing the game as written.
I should hope they'd be willing to pay that cost. What's the point of buying a book if what is written doesn't mean what is written?
HOw is so?Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.Rather than negating the penalty (-4 becomes 0), it would only reduce it by 2 (-4 becomes -2).
That is a nerf any way you slice it, since it certainly negates TWFing penalties.
Good catch.
You suffer no penatly from for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
HOw is so?Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.Rather than negating the penalty (-4 becomes 0), it would only reduce it by 2 (-4 becomes -2).
That is a nerf any way you slice it, since it certainly negates TWFing penalties.
I get that it's a nerf, but I'm guessing, if they were to fix it at all, it's going to be a nerf regardless.
Would this be more to your liking? You take no penalties for fighting with two weapons on attacks made with a shield. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Both serve, what I believe to be, the intent of the feat, though I think the first is a more likely clarification than the second.
[Edit] Leave the post box open for awhile without hitting submit, and you're likely to get ninja'd by a lot :P
HOw is so?Personally, I think it should be phrased thusly: The penalty for two-weapon fighting on attacks made with the shield are reduced by -2 to a minimum of 0. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.This would be a nerf, not a clarification. If I found out my Scimitar/Klar build had been nerfstomped in lieu of simply clarifying a supposedly ambiguous rule I'd be somewhat peeved.Rather than negating the penalty (-4 becomes 0), it would only reduce it by 2 (-4 becomes -2).
That is a nerf any way you slice it, since it certainly negates TWFing penalties.
I get that it's a nerf, but I'm guessing, if they were to fix it at all, it's going to be a nerf regardless.
Would this be more to your liking? You take no penalties for fighting with two weapons on attacks made with a shield. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
Both serve, what I believe to be, the intent of the feat, though I think the first is a more likely clarification than the second.
The second is how the Feat is likely intended to work, and would be the likely clarification if it was clarified, rather than nerfed. If it was meant to reduce penalties it would just say to reduce them, rather than "not suffer" them.
To those saying that the intent is "obvious" I find the biggest problem is the contradictory statements from both the table entry for Shield Master and the feat's description.
No two-weapon penalties when attacking with a shield
The description of the feat says this:
You do not suffer any 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.
**EDIT** According to RAW, the Table actually has the incorrect intent, since by that reading, as long as you make attacks with a shield, you don't suffer any penalties with any other weapon you TWF with, so that's not sensible.
The Description has a lot more to it; it generalizes to any penalty. It even then says you add your shield enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls like you would a weapon enhancement bonus.
The Table gives a general identification of the feat, and cites any new pre-requisites (that don't otherwise need to be fulfilled from other feats you've acquired and the pre-requisites from those) you need to take the feat. The Description gives a much more detailed expanse of the feat and its capabilities/restrictions. So when it comes to Specific>General, the Description wins out, meaning by-the-book, it overrides the otherwise assumed and general intent we get from the Table summary.
Those who oppose the increased power creep (myself included) can sit there and say it's not intended to be that strong, but those people are the ones making the houserules in this case, since the book has a pretty compelling case against them.
That being said, an Errata is in order so as to quell the number of Shieldbasher munchkins.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Errata is in order so as to quell the number of Shieldbasher munchkins.
I seriously doubt this is anything more than theory. I can't imagine the kind of person who would actually build a character to make use of this to reduce Power Attack, Iterative attack, and other penalties.
I know if I had a player do this, I'd ask if it was a joke and if he was serious that would probably be when I ask him to never come to game I'm at again. ;-)
I know if I had a player do this, I'd ask if it was a joke and if he was serious that would probably be when I ask him to never come to game I'm at again.
I assume you don't allow blood money or simulacrum at your tables either.
Yeah its effects are obvious, attacks with shields are under no penalties. Not from 2wf or power attack.Sure. Tell that to your GM. I'm sure it'll go just fine.
I actually brought this up to my GM. He proceeded to slam my teeth in with a shield.
Errata is in order so as to quell the number of Shieldbasher munchkins.I seriously doubt this is anything more than theory. I can't imagine the kind of person who would actually build a character to make use of this to reduce Power Attack, Iterative attack, and other penalties.
I know if I had a player do this, I'd ask if it was a joke and if he was serious that would probably be when I ask him to never come to game I'm at again. ;-)
You don't take a -5/-10 penalty on iterative, it's because your BAB is 5 lower.
You don't take a -5/-10 penalty on iterative, it's because your BAB is 5 lower.Errata is in order so as to quell the number of Shieldbasher munchkins.I seriously doubt this is anything more than theory. I can't imagine the kind of person who would actually build a character to make use of this to reduce Power Attack, Iterative attack, and other penalties.
I know if I had a player do this, I'd ask if it was a joke and if he was serious that would probably be when I ask him to never come to game I'm at again. ;-)
Improved/Greater TWF, however, gives you additional attacks at a -5/-10 penalty, so if Shield Master allowed you to ignore TWF penalties, as opposed to reducing the penalty by -2, then you could use TWF, Imp. TWF and Grtr. TWF to make an attack of something like +15/+15/+15/+15/+10 for an attack routine.